Clarity for the thoughts previously posted

 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