My friend Jonathan suggested I send my post to his pastor, Tim Price. He brings up several valid points that bring much clarity to the thoughts I expressed in my previous post.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Tim Price
I
read your blog and it doesn’t surprise me that you encountered this
kind of response. I’ve encountered the same thing many times with JWs
and Mormons, not so much with Catholics who are not generally interested
in attracting Protestant beliefs. JWs and Mormons have to harmonize
with Protestants as much as possible in order to gain converts. They
are trained meticulously to do exactly what you witnessed, i.e. agree
with you while holding the broader agenda close to their chests. It’s a
method that makes use of the confined space of an argument. You came
away from the discussion thinking that you were only dealing with the
subject of salvation (the nature of the Gospel) even though, in the
background of your mind, you knew there was a broader context, and that,
I think, is what disturbs you. At some point, your opponent should
have given away his hand, but he didn’t. Part of that is because you
should have left the Gospel box and gone for more basic presuppositions.
There are two that never fail: Have the opponent define God, and Ask
the opponent why he shouldn’t consider YOU a JW/Mormon since you both
seem to be in agreement, in other words, Why shouldn’t you assume his
evangelical efforts are futile if he sees no reason to believe you are
not just like him. The latter reverses the weight of the argument onto
him. Neither the JWs nor the Mormons have a Christian view of God so
the former requires that they admit to trinitarian and christological
heresy. In other words, you have to get control of the argument by
dragging them into your box.
I
do not suggest ever treating a known cult member as a regenerate
Christian for a number of reasons, but primarily because they must
repent of their beliefs. You said at one point in your blog, “At the
same time, I do not think that saving faith is only found in our
evangelical circles. I believe that there are JWs, Mormons and Catholics
who have a real saving knowledge of the gospel. I am aware of small
factions of Catholics that have a real gospel preached to them.” You
use the terms “saving faith” and “saving knowledge seemingly
interchangeably and I assume, since you profess deep orthodoxy, that you
mean that there is a truth within their system that could be saving.
This is partially true and the same can be said for other religions,
even very decadent ones. An animistic religion, such as that of the
Lakota Sioux, contains very true ideas about the Holy Spirit. The
problem is that the truth of it is so admixed with the falseness of the
system that one cannot be extracted from the other. It is the pollution
that affects the truth, not the reverse (at least in no other way than
to morally temper the lie). It is not the lying portion of the system
they need to be saved from, but the pollution of the whole system.
Everything must be abandoned in order that pure truth may replace the
lie. No lie is devoid of truth; man is not capable of constructing
anything except by the use of what material God has given. Here’s where
one finds himself standing on the Bifrost Bridge... enter C. S. Lewis.
I
join those who have great problems with Lewis in this quotation.
Judging from his statement in The Last Battle that seeing Tash as Aslan
is sufficient for Emeth (which is not coincidentally Hebrew for “truth”)
to enter into the Narnian “heaven” — I think I know that Lewis means
exactly what he’s saying here, which is essentially universalism. Lewis
stands firmly on the Bifrost Bridge between earth (Midgard) and the
world of myth (Asgard, which really translates in meaning to “human
imagination”, the vault of the world that is within Ymir’s skull). His
view of the doctrine of sin is seriously flawed (at least in theory, for
Lewis’s public views were never very consistent with his personal
experience of salvation.) Lewis’s theory is that Jesus is the “myth
become fact” when the reverse is what is taught in Scripture, that the
revelation of Christ (the Protoevangelium) became myth. The latter
proposition fits the evidence far better and is completely free of
Bifrost.
Truth
is contained within myth. Paul says as much to the philosophers on
Mar’s Hill when he quotes their poets to them, but Paul is not fooled by
the scraps of truth they “grasp at” in ignorance, nor is he seeking a
table of conference with them. He calls upon them to embrace the
resurrection (something they did not believe in) and repent (something
they did not believe they needed to do.) He maintained the antithesis
and pushed it forward. Evangelism is not a peace-making measure; it is a
form of warfare. Paul knew that even though the Greeks had collected a
few shards of busted truth, deception and self-deception had done its
work on them and shackled them in inextricable delusion. They needed to
have their bonds “violently” broken by pure truth and life.
Your
quote, “Why do we think people have to be on our side of every issue
before they are saved? If we had to embrace even just one facet of the
gospel in the fullest sense using our human strength, we could not.”
Very true. That is the nature of grace. Understanding always follows
faith, never the reverse. “In thy light, I see light” is the starting
point of the Christian life. I should say that the fresh convert is
about as unchristian in his views as he can be when he has first been
quickened from the depths of the world, but the difference is that he is
now willing to forsake everything and will willingly let go of anything
he ever believed once Truth has demanded it of him. But this is the
work of the Spirit and not ours. We must demand that the sinner embrace
Truth (the True Gospel), whether he knows that truth or not and that is
saving faith... something the sinner does not posses nor is it
contained in his deceiving system.
So,
when the JW or the Mormon seems to agree on faith, and salvation, and
grace, follow those instincts because you know he/she is changing the
definitions. Their god is no God, and that defines everything they
believe and makes it false... and they know that, which is why they are
trying to deceive you. The person you are talking to may not be fully
aware of this, but the people who trained him do. Like Walter Martin
once said, “Attack the system, not the man.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate the views that pastor Price expressed. He really cuts through all of the fluff and bring us back to the Scriptures. Thank you pastor for your input.
Elliott
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Monday, April 21, 2014
Mormons, JWs and Catholics
It has come to my attention that many of the views I have expressed in
this post are in err. I have left it in its entirety only with the
intention that others may gain from my original thought process and then
the rebuttal.
It has also been brought to my attention that I am discourteous in bunching Catholics along with Mormons and JWs. I "recant" this action of mine.
I suspect that the content of this post will be very controversial. I am bordering the fringes of our comfortable conservative theology. My intent is to simply write down some thoughts I have had recently. I am mostly drawing from an experience where I conversed with a Mormon about my faith.
Obviously, my intent was to communicate to him the message of the gospel. I was asking him about himself and found that he was pretty devout in his Mormonism. He had done the two year missionary outreach thing that the Mormons encourage and had a fiance that was also a Mormon. He was a very personable fellow and he had a background in farming, an area of common ground between us. As I proceeded (clumsily) with the gospel message, he nodded his head the entire time and communicated that he believed everything I was saying. Now, some might think I presented a watered down gospel, but I was sure to emphasize the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice and the futility of our offering good works for our salvation, which I knew was one of the errors of Mormonism.
After seeing him agreeing with me I couldn't put it together in my head. I was reeling for something that would enable him to see that he did not agree with me so that he would see that he had to make a choice. So, I went over it again. Jesus' sacrifice is the only thing that can put us in a right standing with God. Works do nothing for our eternal salvation. He agreed again! I was sure to spell out what I meant by "repentance", "faith", etc. because I know they like to use different definitions. I preceded to present this concept yet a third time. He assured me that he understood and agreed. I was floored. What could I say to help him understand that he did not have an accurate view of the gospel even though he insisted that he did? What does this mean for my perception of Mormons or at least this fellow?
Now, just to be completely clear, I am not trying to say that Mormons are part of the family of faith. Nor am I trying to imply that the young man I talked with was truly a believer. At the same time, I do not think that saving faith is only found in our evangelical circles. I believe that there are JWs, Mormons and Catholics who have a real saving knowledge of the gospel. I am aware of small factions of Catholics that have a real gospel preached to them. I am just trying to find the most persuasive way to present the gospel to someone who claims to be a Christian because I do not know his state before God.
These are my thoughts at the moment. Looking back on that experience, I feel like I might have had a more solid message, a more persuasive approach, if I approached him from the perspective of being brothers in Christ. And instead of telling him what he supposedly already knows, as if it was something he had not attained, if I exhorted him to simply trust in Christ and live in repentance daily.
This would have turned his mind in the same direction as the former method without alienating him from myself as a messenger of the gospel.
Perhaps I am wrong in thinking this would be a better method, I know I am given to men-pleasing tendencies and this idea might flow out of a desire to not offend anyone and to stay on their good side.
Now for a very controversial quote from our favorite author, C.S. Lewis,
C.S. Lewis has been scorned a lot for this statement and I don't know that I agree 100%. It just seems to me that in a religion where the Bible is used (among other literature), that some people will inevitably be saved through the reading of the Word.
Think about Abraham. He was an idolater (Joshua 24:2) who God called to himself out of his idolatry. In his story, we do not see a human means by which God told Abraham (then Abram) the way of true worship. He simple revealed his plan to him. It reminds me of my time in Chad, where I heard of Muslims having dreams that led them to Jesus.
Why do we think people have to be on our side of every issue before they are saved? If we had to embrace even just one facet of the gospel in the fullest sense using our human strength, we could not.
I would really like to hear some input from others about this. I know it is controversial and honestly I don't care to get into a debate about what cults believe and whether they can be saved while still practicing their cultish rites. I mostly want to hear other methods and ideas you might have for cases like these and an opinion on my idea.
Thank you for reading.
Elliott
This is just a side note, but I feel such a freedom to write these "strange" thoughts now that I have dealt with my idolatry of pursuit of marriage. Before, I would be far too worried about other people's opinions of me, always trying to look like I am "normal" so that crazy things like this wouldn't get in the way of relationships.
It has also been brought to my attention that I am discourteous in bunching Catholics along with Mormons and JWs. I "recant" this action of mine.
I suspect that the content of this post will be very controversial. I am bordering the fringes of our comfortable conservative theology. My intent is to simply write down some thoughts I have had recently. I am mostly drawing from an experience where I conversed with a Mormon about my faith.
Obviously, my intent was to communicate to him the message of the gospel. I was asking him about himself and found that he was pretty devout in his Mormonism. He had done the two year missionary outreach thing that the Mormons encourage and had a fiance that was also a Mormon. He was a very personable fellow and he had a background in farming, an area of common ground between us. As I proceeded (clumsily) with the gospel message, he nodded his head the entire time and communicated that he believed everything I was saying. Now, some might think I presented a watered down gospel, but I was sure to emphasize the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice and the futility of our offering good works for our salvation, which I knew was one of the errors of Mormonism.
After seeing him agreeing with me I couldn't put it together in my head. I was reeling for something that would enable him to see that he did not agree with me so that he would see that he had to make a choice. So, I went over it again. Jesus' sacrifice is the only thing that can put us in a right standing with God. Works do nothing for our eternal salvation. He agreed again! I was sure to spell out what I meant by "repentance", "faith", etc. because I know they like to use different definitions. I preceded to present this concept yet a third time. He assured me that he understood and agreed. I was floored. What could I say to help him understand that he did not have an accurate view of the gospel even though he insisted that he did? What does this mean for my perception of Mormons or at least this fellow?
Now, just to be completely clear, I am not trying to say that Mormons are part of the family of faith. Nor am I trying to imply that the young man I talked with was truly a believer. At the same time, I do not think that saving faith is only found in our evangelical circles. I believe that there are JWs, Mormons and Catholics who have a real saving knowledge of the gospel. I am aware of small factions of Catholics that have a real gospel preached to them. I am just trying to find the most persuasive way to present the gospel to someone who claims to be a Christian because I do not know his state before God.
These are my thoughts at the moment. Looking back on that experience, I feel like I might have had a more solid message, a more persuasive approach, if I approached him from the perspective of being brothers in Christ. And instead of telling him what he supposedly already knows, as if it was something he had not attained, if I exhorted him to simply trust in Christ and live in repentance daily.
This would have turned his mind in the same direction as the former method without alienating him from myself as a messenger of the gospel.
Perhaps I am wrong in thinking this would be a better method, I know I am given to men-pleasing tendencies and this idea might flow out of a desire to not offend anyone and to stay on their good side.
Now for a very controversial quote from our favorite author, C.S. Lewis,
"There are people in other religions who are being
led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their
religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus
belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist
of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist
teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he
might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other
points.
Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been
in this position. And always, of course, there are a great many
people who are just confused in mind and have a lot of inconsistent
beliefs all jumbled up together. Consequently, it is not much use
trying to make judgments about Christians and non-Christians in the
mass."
- Mere Christianity [Ch. 10,
209]
C.S. Lewis has been scorned a lot for this statement and I don't know that I agree 100%. It just seems to me that in a religion where the Bible is used (among other literature), that some people will inevitably be saved through the reading of the Word.
Think about Abraham. He was an idolater (Joshua 24:2) who God called to himself out of his idolatry. In his story, we do not see a human means by which God told Abraham (then Abram) the way of true worship. He simple revealed his plan to him. It reminds me of my time in Chad, where I heard of Muslims having dreams that led them to Jesus.
Why do we think people have to be on our side of every issue before they are saved? If we had to embrace even just one facet of the gospel in the fullest sense using our human strength, we could not.
I would really like to hear some input from others about this. I know it is controversial and honestly I don't care to get into a debate about what cults believe and whether they can be saved while still practicing their cultish rites. I mostly want to hear other methods and ideas you might have for cases like these and an opinion on my idea.
Thank you for reading.
Elliott
This is just a side note, but I feel such a freedom to write these "strange" thoughts now that I have dealt with my idolatry of pursuit of marriage. Before, I would be far too worried about other people's opinions of me, always trying to look like I am "normal" so that crazy things like this wouldn't get in the way of relationships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)