Posts Tagged ‘Gospel’

(This article is available in downloadable and printable PDF, 2 column article format: Click here to download)

Bruce Waltke is one of the most well-known Old Testament scholars in the Reformed tradition of this generation. Known by many as a conservative, his comments made in a recently-released 2009 interview may have created one of the most significant theological firestorms to sweep through the evangelical community in recent memory.

(This issue has generated a tremendous number of articles, blogs and comments and because of the sheer volume it has become very difficult to trace everything back to the primary sources for the information I have reported below. However, I do believe that the picture I have presented is accurate.)

________________

“Bruce Waltke: Why Must the Church Accept Evolution?”

On March 24, the Science and Sacred blog of the Biologos Forum posted a 2009 interview in which Dr. Waltke made definitive statements defending theistic evolution, while simultaneously marginalizing and potentially alienating all who still hold to a literal six-day-creation view of Genesis. In the video titled Bruce Waltke: Why Must the Church Accept Evolution? Dr. Waltke makes the following statement*:

…if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.

(Quoted in an April 9, 2010 article on the Christianity Today website and on many other sites)

* I have not been able to locate the video anywhere on the internet as it has apparently been taken down everywhere. However, that this is an accurate quote is corroborated by many websites.

At the time the video debuted, Dr. Waltke had been a professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) for more than 20 years, but his resignation from the seminary was reported on April 6. Biologos reports that on March 29 he was asked by the seminary to request that the video be taken down. Miscellanies: a Christ-centered blog reported a clarification by Dr. Waltke on March 31 in which he continues to affirm that Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans descended.*

*Although I have not yet found the original, that this is accurate is also corroborated by other websites carrying the same statement.

Although some early reports indicated that RTS had essentially forced his resignation, Dr. Waltke and seminary Chancellor and CEO Robert (Ric) Cannada have subsequently issued a joint statement that this is not true. Dr. Waltke tendered his resignation because of the harm the video was causing RTS and his resignation was accepted as being in the best interests of RTS. (for a post of Bruce Waltke’s statement, click here; for Ric Cannada’s statement, click here).

On April 30, the board of Knox Theological Seminary approved the appointment of Dr. Bruce Waltke as Distinguished Professor of Old Testament. (the KTS statement) (Knox Theological Seminary is a ministry of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, a member of the PCA.)

This “Will Make Us A Cult”

The Alliance for Biblical Integrity holds to Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) and I will deal with some of the specific scientific and exegetical issues in the evolution / creation debate at some point in the future. However, in this article, I am limiting my comments to the general theological and philosophical problems of evolution, including those associated with marginalizing Young-Earth Creationists by suggesting we may eventually be viewed as a cult.

To be fair, Dr. Waltke has stated that he would have given the video a different title and that the interview was edited in such a way to make him appear to be making stronger statements than he intended against those who don’t agree with his views on theistic evolution. The following has been posted on a third-party blog as being copied from a statement on his Facebook site:

I am not a scientist, but I have familiarized myself with attempts to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with science, and I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position. I apologize for giving the impression that others who seek to harmonize the two differently are not credible. I honor all who contend for the Christian faith.

However, the statement concerning the problem of being labeled a cult does not seem to simply be an off-the-cuff remark in an unguarded moment. And even if he might state it differently in retrospect or if this was not his intention, his comments do reflect a widely-held view that YEC is only held by those on the anti-intellectual fringe of conservative evangelicalism. Of course, this has been the consensus of the scientific establishment for as long as anyone can remember. But Dr. Waltke’s words seem to imply that we legitimately run the risk of this becoming the common consensus—which would necessarily include that of the evangelical community in general.

It seems surprising that Dr. Waltke would use the word “cult” so loosely and imprecisely. “Cult” is almost exclusively reserved for groups that deny the deity of Christ, yet it seems unlikely that he is suggesting that rejecting theistic evolution is somehow even close to being equivalent to such heresy. So why even use this term—even if to stress his concern that those who continue to hold this position run the risk of losing credibility? At the very least, the term is unnecessarily inflammatory.

The reasoning behind Dr. Waltke’s statement is also puzzling. Ultimately, a primary reason for us to be concerned about being labeled a cult for any reason must be that the gospel message we proclaim will be rejected as a result. But who would reject our gospel over the question of beginnings if not those who already reject it on other grounds—including many in the scientific community?

Will Theistic Evolution Really Help The Cause Of The Gospel?

Is it reasonable to expect that Muslim intellectuals will accept the deity of Christ if—or because evangelical Christians accept theistic evolution? Will Hindu biologists accept the concept of the triune personal God of the Bible if—or because evangelical Christians reject Young-earth Creationism? Will liberal Protestants return to the biblical gospel of personal redemption through faith in Jesus Christ alone if—or because evangelical Christians embrace their view of Genesis 1-11 as merely a collection of myths? Will even one materialistic evolutionist recognize that he has been wrong about God’s existence if—or because evangelical Christians recognize that they have been wrong about Darwin’s theory?

The answer to these questions seems intuitively obvious. These groups all rejected the biblical gospel long before the evolution / creation debate became a scientific issue, a social cause, a cultural phenomenon or a political football. And if anything, the deepening rejection of the gospel within academia has tracked right with the movement away from a literal view of creation – and not even pretending to slow down at theistic evolution on its way to atheistic evolution. Despite Dr. Waltke’s long years of ministry and work in the rigorous field of theological academics, his comments seem oddly naive.

From a scientific perspective, don’t the twin issues of the resurrection from the dead and life-after-death pose least as much of an obstacle as evolution? Concerning the case for the resurrection, the only evidence consists of historical records. Concerning the case for life-after-death the only arguments are purely philosophical / theological. There is no empirical evidence that the spiritual realm exists, apart from a few spurious claims to the contrary. Anecdotal reports of common near-death experiences do not constitute scientific proof. But even if such proof did exist, it would not produce a rush by the scientific community or anyone else to trust in Christ for salvation, because lack of evidence is not the real issue.

Another significant issue is that of Adam and Eve. In a post-video follow-up, Waltke states:

1. Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.

2. Adam is the federal and historical head of the fallen human race just as Jesus Christ is the federal and historical head of the Church.

I don’t see how Dr. Waltke’s present position will give him much more credibility as long as he continues to maintain that Adam and Eve were historical figures. Sooner or later, he will have no choice but to abandon one view or the other. Apart from the scientific problems, the virtually insurmountable nature of the logical and theological problems can readily be seen by anyone who thinks through the issue. (These will be discussed later.)

Is Theistic Evolution The Only Credible View?

Apparently, Dr. Waltke has not always thought so. In an article on biblical cosmogony in the Jan.-Mar. 1975 edition of Bibliotheca Sacra, Dr. Waltke asked the question:

Why has the new generation turned from the theologian to the scientist for the answer to his nagging question about the origin of the universe? (“The Creation Account in Genesis 1-3″)

In the quote from the video, and in the subsequent clarification, one cannot deduce for sure that Dr. Waltke has completely ruled out the possibility that the Genesis account can be taken literally. However, he does seem to be very close to that position—particularly in light of his resignation from RTS.  This leads us to wonder what has happened over the last 35 years that has caused him to change his views regarding evolution if his high view of Scripture hasn’t changed, as well—something which he also maintains.

Although Dr. Waltke has made it clear that he holds to theistic evolution (as opposed to naturalistic evolution), it is not at all clear that he held to any form of evolution in 1975. In explaining his position in this article, Dr. Waltke refers to a lecture he gave as a guest speaker in a course on genetics at Southern Methodist University, during which he appeared to defend the literal creationist position. His basic thesis was that evolution, like creationism, is a faith position which cannot be scientifically proven.

During the questioning session that followed the lecture, the basic thesis was accepted by both professor and students, but their next question was, “Why should we accept your faith position instead of ours?”

Now the author is not suggesting that by this one experience he has refuted the hypothesis of evolution, but he is maintaining that all answers which attempt to explain the origin of the universe are essentially faith positions. The question that the LORD asked of Job is asked of every man: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”

The following is an excellent statement that he made in the same article under the section, “The Importance of Cosmogony.” (If Dr. Waltke’s views haven’t fundamentally changed since 1975, it seems odd that after 20 years it would only now be in the best interests of RTS for him to leave the school.)

But it may be asked, “What difference does all this make?” It is important because the question of cosmogony is closely related to one’s entire world view. Someone has said that our world view is like the umpire at a ball game. He seems unimportant and the players are hardly aware of him, but in reality he decides the ball game. So likewise one’s world view lies behind every decision a person makes. It makes a difference whether we come from a mass of matter or from the hand of God. How we think the world started will greatly influence our understanding of our identity, our relationship to others, our values, and our behavior. Because the question of cosmogony is important for understanding some of the basic issues of life, intelligent men throughout recorded history have sought the answer to this question. Just as the knowledge of the future is crucial for making basic choices in life, so also the knowledge of beginnings is decisive in establishing a man’s or a culture’s Weltanschauung (“world view”). No wonder the Bible reveals both.

Because of man’s limitation as a creature, he must receive this knowledge by revelation from the Creator. Moreover, because of the noetic effects of sin, he needs to be reborn before he can comprehend that revelation.

Scientists now regularly state that evolution is no longer a theory, but a proven fact—and it would appear that Dr. Waltke has become persuaded that this is true. However, the problem he cites above has not changed, and in fact, it cannot change. As he notes, “The answer is beyond the range of empirical proof” and this is because it involves events that happened in the past.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that God has created the universe such that macro-evolution can actually occur without his ongoing intervention. That macro-evolution could happen and that it actually did happen are two entirely separate issues. The only way there can be a necessary relationship between the two is if God does not exist—and that is precisely the starting point for atheistic evolutionists.

But this begs the question for theistic evolutionists, as well. If theistic evolution is true, then either evolution requires God’s intervention or God unnecessarily chose to be involved. However, this presents a conundrum. The evidence and arguments required for theistic evolutionsists to maintain that God is necessary at some point in the process are essentially the same ones used by Young-earth Creationists. So, what is the advantage when trying to persuade anyone either of God’s existence or of the truth of the Gospel? If the arguments are essentially the same, then on what grounds do Young-earth Creationists run the risk of being labeled a cult any more than the theistic evolutionist who also maintains the view that Christ arose from the grave to be alive forevermore—a view that most scientists would claim to be decidedly “unscientific.”

Irreconcilable Practical and Theological Problems

Ultimately, theistic evolution creates far more problems than it solves. This is not simply an issue of whether or not a given passage should be understood figuratively or literally. Below are just a few of the many questions and problems raised by the theory of theistic evolution.

If theistic evolution is true in general…

• Wouldn’t death have been a part of life for the millions of years prior to the fall of Adam and Eve?

• Wouldn’t biological decay have occurred over the eons, as well?

• Wouldn’t have all the forces of nature that we observe today been at work also—i.e., destructive weather and geological phenomena?

• What, exactly, were the effects of the Fall, if death, destruction and decay had been an inherent part of the creation from the beginning?

• How could God pronounce that all he created was “good,” if death, destruction and decay had been an inherent part of the creation from the beginning?

• How could it be determined scientifically which parts of the evolutionary process were immediately and necessarily guided by the hand of God, and which ones could have happened without God’s direct intervention?

• How would the answer to the previous question fundamentally differ from the arguments used by Young-earth Creationists?

If Adam and Eve were created instantaneously millions to billions of years after the initial creation…

• How can it be explained that Adam and Eve were placed in an environment that was already marked by death, destruction and decay?

• Were Adam and Eve created to live forever in such an environment?

• Did God also at that time create the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil or are these simply metaphorical?

• What, exactly, did Adam and Eve do to bring about their spiritual and physical death, if these things are only metaphorical?

• Why did Moses include the details about cherubim and a flaming sword guarding the entrance to the Garden—and how should we understand this passage, if these things are only metaphorical?

If instead of Adam and Eve being independently created, lower life forms had evolved into hominids over the millennia…

• Would it be proper to say that Adam and Eve were animals prior to God breathing into them the breath of life so that they became “living souls?”

• Would it be reasonable to assume that only two such animals had evolved or that these were the only two among many which became living souls—which would be required for them to be the only progenitors of the human race?

• Wouldn’t it be reasonable to suggest that there were many such hominids at that time, who were biologically identical to humans and looked exactly like humans, but really were not?

• What would have prevented procreation between humans and biologically identical hominids—or is it possible that this actually happened?

• What happened to all of these pre-human animals?
__________________

These are not absurd questions. And because of these and many others that could be posed, it doesn’t seem that theistic evolution could possibly be more acceptable to unbelievers than Young-earth Creationism. When carefully considered, it actually seems that theistic evolution could be viewed by naturalistic evolutionists as even more foolish and logically inconsistent than YEC.

I understand there are some significant difficulties that remain to be addressed by YEC from a scientific perspective. However, theistic evolution introduces at least as many problems because science and biblical theology must still be reconciled—which is obviously not a burden for naturalistic evolutionists.

Unfortunately, I don’t to see how either Dr. Waltke’s position on theistic evolution or his comments are in any way helpful to conservative evangelicals and the cause of Christ.

This ABI blog is a bit of a departure from most articles – but it does focus on reaching the lost with the gospel in a unique way.

This blog features an email from a dear friend, Linda Summer, who is the Director of the Agape Puppet ministry. Linda and her team are currently in India and reaching thousands of Hindu children with the gospel of Jesus Christ. As always, she is accompanied by Sam Shaw (from Northern Ireland), who is the Associate Director for the ministry and his wife, Silvana, who is from Brazil.

Linda Summer is a truly amazing servant of the Lord. Despite innumerable health problems, she travels tirelessly around the world with an ever-changing team of young people (in their teens and early twenties) to get the gospel into some of the most remote places and unreached children on the planet. Her travels fairly frequently take her into limited-access countries, from which she can’t even directly reveal their presence or location.

As if the Agape Puppets’ direct ministry to children were not enough, Linda and her team always take hundreds of dollars worth of puppets, sound equipment and ministry supplies to each country in order to train and equip a new group of nationals each trip, so that they can continue reaching children with the gospel in this most effective way.

I first met Linda in India in 2004 while teaching at the Asian Christian Academy seminary, about an hour south of Bangalore. I was deeply impressed by her commitment to the Lord, her skills as a communicator to children, and the effectiveness in getting the gospel to so many children who would otherwise never hear the gospel in their entire lives. Within a few years we were able to have her come to Hungary with a team to teach our Bible School students and staff in the art of puppet ministry – and that time marked the beginning of the Word of Life Hungary Children’s Ministry.

My sense is that the Agape Puppet ministry is perhaps one of the very most effective evangelistic ministries to children in the world today – particularly when it comes to reaching the unreached children.

I encourage you to go to the Agape Puppets website:

www.theagapepuppets.org/

You can also write to them to ask to receive Linda’s regular email updates as the Agape Puppets ministry travels around the world:

admin@theagapepuppets.org

Note: As you read, you will find that Linda and the team often mention working in Catholic schools, but this is because that is where the children are. The public school system, particularly in rural areas is very, very poor and so if they are able, Hindu parents send their children to these parochial schools to get a level of education that they could never receive otherwise.

Linda Summer’s February 24 Report from India

NOTE: The following is a report that was written across the last three days. By the time you read this, pray and rejoice, we will be on our way to a new city. Keep praying!

DEAREST FRIENDS,

These are amazing days that we are experiencing in Tirupattur. I don’t want you to miss a single bit of all the incredible things that God is doing in this place. Your prayers have enabled us to stand in the darkest place. This city and the surrounding country side are full of idols.

Everywhere we go, people stare at us as we are also the only foreigners in a large city. There are over a 100 schools here and a 100 more in the surrounding countryside. We are constantly reminded that our God has placed us here to be a sweet witness for Him. Since we are always watched, we have more opportunities. People are curious.

As I read Psalm 96 tonight, I was especially drawn to verses 4 and 5. “For great is the Lord and greatly to be praised; He is to be feared above all gods. For all gods of the peoples are worthless idols, but the Lord made the heavens.” Truly, we are seeing the false gods of this place shamed by the power of the one true God.

You will absolutely love what you are about to read. Right across 3 days, we shared in 10 schools and 2 villages. Over 9,000 children, teenagers and adults heard how they could put their trust in Jesus in a Hindu stronghold. God blessed your prayers. Through your faithfulness, God opened doors and called children to faith.

570 BOYS

Our adventure began at a Catholic school where we shared with an all-boy audience. They sat spellbound,  listening to every part of the program. I could hear soft whispers as some boys prayed, calling on Jesus. Afterwards, many boys thanked us for coming. Most were from Hindu families.

THREE BELIEVERS

At a village school, three of the staff loved Jesus. The children were very poor and had never seen a puppet or anything we had with us. They were very sweet children. We had to tell them that nothing we had would hurt them because everything and everyone was strange to them. Since this was a Hindu public school, we were not allowed to pray with the children, but we could explain to them how they could ask Jesus to be their Savior. Don’t you love what God does!

SIVASAKTHI, RAJENDREN, PONNARARSAM, AND VENKATESAM

These are the names of some of the 1,200 boys and girls that we shared with in an afternoon show at a Hindu public school. All of the teachers came and listened as well. Again, we could not pray with them, but we could explain the Gospel message completely to the children. So many children crowded around us to get an autograph or just shake our hands, many kept saying “Thank you, thank you!”. I saw in their eyes that they listened with their hearts.

THE VILLAGE

A street show in a village moved all of us to tears. Everyone came. We set up in front of a Hindu temple with a statue of a false god beside us. Isn’t it fantastic that God opened this door!

Though we were clearly in a Hindu village, everyone was hungry to hear about Jesus Christ. When we finished, no-one wanted to leave. For a very long time they remained, asking us to pray for them. People came with all kinds of needs. You see spiritual problems in developing nations that are less talked about in the West. A lady came to me who was demon-possessed and wanted to be delivered. She had a Hindu temple blessing mark on her forehead and I explained to her that God could remove the demons from her. However, I explained if she did not put her trust in Jesus, she had no protection.

These people are very poor. Three families sacrificially pooled their resources to offer us hospitality. They served us some boiled sweet potatoes, cookies, coffee and soft drinks. They did not eat. We sat in the only chairs on a dirt floor. How can you express enough gratitude to such dear people! Please pray for them.

SO MANY CHILDREN

At a Catholic school, I walked to the back of the crowd while Sam was juggling on the stage. There were so many children that he looked like a little speck. When we finished, the nuns were ecstatic. They said that all of us had such joy! We had many conversations with the nuns and teachers after the program, sharing with them how God had changed our hearts through faith in Jesus. Around 2,000 children and teachers listened to the Gospel. The children were mostly from Hindu families and desperately poor.

Everyone was so happy. They invited us to their convent. They treated us to homemade vegetable soup, sandwiches, special Indian sweets, tiny wreath-shaped cookies and fruit. Again, we had many more opportunities to share.

As we were leaving, two nuns called me Mother Linda and asked me to bless them. I explained that I could not bless anyone, but I offered to stop right then and pray for them. Please pray for these ladies and all the children in the school to understand God’s Word and love Jesus Christ deeply. They begged us to come again.

UNDER THE TREES

God gave us a breeze and trees for the children to sit under. Hundreds of boys prayed with enthusiasm. We shared with Hindu and Muslim children. We all feel rich as we hold in our hearts treasures no-one can take from us!

AN EXTRA SCHOOL

A Catholic Priest saw the program at another school and so another door opened. He gave us the joy of telling 900 children and teachers about Jesus Christ. When we finished, it seemed that he also had been blessed by the program. He thanked us “for travelling all over the world telling children the Good News”. Many children prayed with us at this program and our joys knows no bounds.

BOYS HIGH SCHOOL

Each program demands that we lean on Jesus and trust in His grace. However, sometimes, as when we were at this school and so exhausted, we tasted a sweeter grace. I knew that I had no more physical strength and had already made arrangements for Sam to take the village show in the evening. I knew that the Lord really wanted me to tell this last story to the boys and I knew that all my strength would have to come from Him.

The Father blessed us! We heard boys, aged 12 to 17, calling on Jesus with enthusiasm! Praise God! Afterwards, they rushed forward to thank us. We heard so many sweet comments: “Beautiful!”, “I loved the program”, “Great!”, “Beautiful songs!”. One boy said to me, “You are a very interesting character”. I think the team liked this comment best.

WITHOUT ME

Anna, Silvana and Sam are amazing! The extreme heat and unexpected wisdom on my part dictated that I rest and not go to the village. The place they went is a BJP village. This is the radical Hindu party that so strongly opposes Christians. Still, surrounded by a complex of Hindu temples, they set up the stage and shared the Gospel. I know that Sam told a fantastic story! Everyone paid attention. Please pray for God to reveal Himself to them.

NOTE:

Wednesday, we shared at three more schools that finished our time at this place. These are part of the ten schools mentioned earlier. We will send you the report as soon as we can. Keep praying!

In Jesus,

Linda for
Silvana
Sam
Anna
Livingston

———————————————————–

“THE AGAPE PUPPETS”

Michael Summer, Founder – Linda Summer, Director
Sam Shaw, Assistant Director
6550 West Armuchee Road
Summerville, Georgia  30747

Phone:  706-397-2956   FAX:  413-425-5805

Email:  Linda@TheAgapePuppets.org

WEB:  www.TheAgapePuppets.org

This is part of a blog series concerning the question of the eternal fate of those who have not heard the gospel by the time of their death.

So far, 77 people have participated in the first survey and 41 in the second, follow-up survey (which are part of this blog series).

The tabulated results can be seen in the graphs below. Even though these results are not statistically significant due to the low number of respondents, they do seem to show that there is a fairly significant divergence of opinion regarding this issue.

And although the results are not correlated to any particular religious profile or general beliefs, it is probable that the respondents are largely made up of regular visitors to the ABI website – and therefore most would probably self-identify as conservative evangelicals.

Click here to take the first survey…

Question: What do you believe concerning the eternal destiny of those who have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

(Note: answers that no one chose are not included)

76% (57 responses) I believe the Bible teaches that all who have never explicitly trusted in Christ for their salvation are eternally lost.

14% (10 responses) I believe that God may save those who have not heard the gospel based upon their belief in God and faithfulness to whatever light they have received.

2% (1 response) I believe that God will save the elect apart from their knowledge of the gospel.

5% (4 responses) I believe that this is not for us to judge, that this is a matter for God alone and we cannot know what he will do.

5% (4 responses) Other

Click here to take the second survey…

Question: What do you believe concerning the eternal destiny of Ayanna? (this question is explained in the survey)

16% (5 responses) I believe Ayanna might be saved and spend eternity in the presence of the Lord because she believed in God and was sincere and faithful to what she knew about him.

3% (1 response) I believe Ayanna may have an opportunity to hear the gospel and receive Christ after she dies.

3% (1 response) I am confident that Ayanna will be saved and spend eternity in the presence of the Lord because of her faith in God and her faithfulness to the light she received.

3% (1 response) I believe that God is the judge and we should not presume to speculate about someone like Ayanna.

78% (24 responses) I believe the Bible teaches that if she never heard about Christ and so never personally trusted him for salvation, Ayanna is lost and will spend eternity suffering in the Lake of Fire.

The graph on the right is also based on the second survey results, but includes those submissions for which no answer was given for this question. I think this may be significant, because all but two of the respondents indicated that they had participated in the first survey. (Although, admittedly, this might not be a correct assumption.)

If the 40% did not answer the question because they weren’t prepared to affirm the belief that those who haven’t heard are lost, then this is consistent with a 2008 Pew Study that asked about the possibility of salvation in other religions besides Christianity.

2008 Pew Forum Study

The full report in PDF format (1.4Mb) can be downloaded <here>

In addition to answering the multiple choice questions, a number of respondents left comments, some of which I have quoted below. I have followed each section of comments with some of my own. I will be addressing these issues further in future articles in this series.

Quotes and Comments

David said of his baby that died that he (David) would go to be with him. 2. Every name is recorded in the book of life so its up to our Blessed Lord whose name is taken out. That being so puts us in good Hands.

There are at least a couple of issues here. One involves the question of what happens to babies when they die. My observation is that many who wrestle with the question of the eternal destiny of those who haven’t heard the gospel tend to think the answer to both questions is necessarily the same. However, theologically, this isn’t the case. In the case of babies and small children, they lack the capacity to exercise faith in Christ for salvation. This would seem to suggest that they also lack the capacity to consciously reject God. However, this is not the same situation as with those who haven’t heard, but do possess the ability to reject God.

The second issue concerns the names which are recorded in the Book of Life. The most common view is that one’s name is written into the Book of Life when they become believers. A somewhat less common view, and the one expressed here, is that everyone’s name is initially recorded in the Book of Life, but at some point it may be blotted out if someone does not “overcome” – presumably, if someone falls into particular sins or if they die without ever having become a true believer. This is based on a particular interpretation of Revelation 3:5.

I do believe that Scripture clearly teaches that all infants, and those not having the ability to “trust” (mentally dificient [sic]) here on earth, will be saved and are only saved as all are, through the shed blood of Christ. No unbelievers in heaven.

I would question whether the matter is clearly settled in Scripture, although I do think there are solid biblical reasons to hold this position in general.

Beyond this, another group is mentioned, apart from infants, who “will be saved” – those who lack the mental capacity to exercise faith. Again, although often combined with those who haven’t heard, they are arguably in a different category (as will be discussed).

This quote also introduces another concept that needs to be evaluated. The respondent seems to be suggesting that although someone may lack the capacity to believe in this life, they will no longer have this deficiency after they die. Of course, virtually everyone would agree with this, but there are two additional issues raised by the comment.

The first is the question of what is sometimes referred to as “post-mortem evangelism” – that the gospel will be presented to someone after death. But included in this is the second question of whether or not anyone will actually have the opportunity to respond to the gospel in faith after they die such that they can be saved.

If so, then yet a third question arises: Will this post-mortem opportunity be extended only to those who lacked the capacity to believe in this life? Or will this opportunity to be saved also be presented to those who had never heard the gospel in this life? And if this is true, would it also possibly include those who had heard the gospel in this life, but consciously rejected it – or at least chose to “put it off” to another time when they would “be ready.” In other words, is there a “second chance?”

I will be dealing with these issues as part of this series.

My answer only applies to this and future dispensations though. In past dispensations the required content of man’s trust in God was different from dispensation to dispensation, but the basis has always been Christ´s effective crosswork [sic], the means has always been faith, the object of such faith has always been God. Merely the content of the required faith has changed over the dispensations in light of progressive revelation. I.e. although David, for instance, has never explicitly trusted in Christ — the way he has been revealed to us in light of progressive revelation — he, nevertheless, is eternally saved. The same goes for Abraham etc. Otherwise the biblical principle for today and all dispensations is: the light received on account of general revelation by an individual will favor the giving of more light in terms of special revelation, but mere assent to general revelation does not suffice to save. Only the thus far revealed content of required faith and that very faith exercised is saving faith according to Scripture.

Along the same line, another respondent wrote:

Almost went for number 2. But if they have responded to what little light they may have, God requires himself to “send more light”. We have numerous and ample examples of this through Wycliffe, New Tribes, etc.

Again, there are two primary issues raised in the first comment, one of which is echoed in the second. Another respondent put it this way:

Theoretically, if she had not suppressed the truth of the one true God and not clung to idolatry but if she had rejected it and consistently [sic] longed and prayed to meet the on true God, she — according to my understanding of the Word of God — would have received the opportunity to hear the gospel and trust Christ. The person who receives the light of natural revelation, will receive more light. If that is received in turn, they will receive even more light, i.e., eventually the Gospel of the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

The first issue relates to the salvation of those who lived prior to the incarnation and the cross. As with the question of small children, the situation with them is often seen as equivalent to that of those who haven’t heard. But is this true from a biblical perspective?

On the other hand, the second respondent above isn’t exactly equating the two, but rather, in providing an explanation, he (or she) actually introduces another view that is also fairly commonly held among conservatives. In this view, which is also expressed in the third comment, the information necessary for salvation cannot be known from simply observing the creation (which I would suggest is the biblical view). However, if someone does respond positively to whatever “light” they have received, again for example, the witness to God in the creation, then through some means (perhaps through receiving a Bible or through a missionary, a radio program, a book, etc.) God will send additional “light” (information) that is sufficient to form a basis for saving faith (of which the object is Christ in this dispensation). In fact, it is suggested that God is obligated (apparently by his nature or what he has promised – which isn’t stated) to “send more light.”

Also, implicit in this view, is the assumption or conclusion that someone who has not heard the gospel might or can actually respond positively to the truth about God that can be known from the creation. This ability to respond positively to general revelation apart from special revelation needs to be considered in light of Scripture.

The problem is your question stated wrong, “never heard the Gospel”, it should read “never except [sic] the Gospel.” Everyone “WILL” hear the gospel, either from those that preach, angels, or Jesus Himself, everyone living or dead will hear the Gospel. The question then becomes what happens when you reject it, and the answer is that you will be eternally separated from God. Hell (Gahenna) [sic] is forever.

Rev 14:6-7  – “Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim…”

I Peter 3:18-22 – “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago…”

As with the two previous comments, this one is representative of yet another view concerning the solution to the issue in question. This probably isn’t the majority view, but neither is it uncommon. In this view, whether in this life or after death, everyone, without exception, will be presented with the gospel and therefore have an opportunity to consciously accept or reject Christ. As with some other views, one of the bases for this view is the argument that it wouldn’t be fair if someone were eternally lost if they have never had an opportunity to hear the gospel. And since we know that not everyone hears the gospel before they die, then it follows that there must be such an opportunity after they die and before they are judged. Among the passages used to support this view (again, “post-mortem evangelism”) are those noted by this respondent.

Given that this is a genuine attempt to deal with this question in a biblical way it at least needs to be considered as a potentially plausible solution and evaluated in light of the context of these and other relevant biblical passages.

There is a very fine line between the first and the second option there. However, if you seek Him with all your heart, you WILL find Him. The promise is not that if you seek Him with all your heart, you will be able to believe whatever light you have received. God is powerful enough to bring the gospel of “faith in His Name” to any soul of man who genuinely seeks Him.

Most would probably not agree that there is only a fine line between the first and second answer in the first survey. However, the important distinction between the two answers does tend to blur in the view reflected in this comment. This view is similar to the previous one, except that those who hold this view would tend to go one step further by proposing that God will get the truth of the gospel to anyone who seeks him, even if in some supernatural, revelatory way – which would include dreams, visions and even visitations by angels or the Lord himself. For example, for many years now, there have been an increasing number of people who have been promoting as true the reports that Jesus is actually personally appearing to Muslims in closed and limited-access countries for the purpose of giving them the gospel.

If Jesus appears to Ayanna in her final moments to give her the message and she accepts then she will either return to Earth to share with others or go on to Heaven. I believe there is a point of passing between Earth and Heaven or Hell.

This represents yet a further concept that stops short of “post-mortem evangelism” – but rather postulates that there is some sort of intermediate or transitory state between life and death, during which time someone can hear the gospel. Although it might initially seem that this would be a very narrowly-held view, this is may not actually be the case, given the wide-spread reports of and fairly firm belief in near-death experiences. There are even books which describe in detail what are claimed to be such experiences.

Many of us are very tempted to at least tentatively accept that this anecdotal evidence may be credible. Therefore, it is important to examine these reports in light of the Word of God to see if they might actually be true.

In the next article, we will be looking specifically at Romans 10 to begin to lay a foundation for the answer to the main question. Then we will look at other relevant passages as they relate to this and the other issues mentioned in the comments – because overall, they tend to represent the broad spectrum of views (except for the full universalism view that simply states that all will be saved without exception).

This is a follow-up to the first ABI Quick Survey in this current series on an important theological and practical issue.

It is well-known that the way survey questions are framed can have a significant influence on the way people respond. One factor can be when questions are posed in such a way that they seem more real or personal to the respondent – and aren’t just theoretical / hypothetical. This can be particularly true with questions related to difficult theological issues.

I hope you will take a moment to read the following scenario and then continue to the second survey in this series.

Note: If you haven’t responded to the first survey, please go to that one-question survey first and then return here. (Available through the ABI Bulletin Board on the home page.)

—————————–

I have traveled to India twice to teach in a seminary south of Bangalore. The seminary is located in a very rural area, which is home to what I suspect are some of the poorest, third-world villages in the world.

I have been to one of these nearby villages and briefly in the home of a Hindu family. As is true of most of India, this area is almost 100% Hindu. So, in the main room of this tiny house with a dirt floor there are pictures or small statues of Hindu gods, prayer beads and an altar where candles are lit each day.

Let’s suppose that one day, a baby girl is born to this honest, hard-working, faithful Hindu family. They name her “Ayanna,” which means “Innocent.” As she grows into a beautiful young lady, she stands out among her friends and has a reputation in her village for being especially kind, compassionate, honest and devout.

She looks at the world around her and knows in her heart that there must be a God who is immense and powerful. She has never had any exposure to Christianity, but she has been taught the importance of treating others as she would wish to be treated. She has never heard the name of Jesus – and never will, but she sincerely believes all that she has learned from her parents and the elders in the village. She prays each day and tries to the best of her ability to please whomever this unknown God might be. With so many in her village dying at a young age, she often wonders what might happen when she dies.

As I mentioned, the seminary is out in the country – and I have been on the road between the seminary and Ayanna’s village several times. It is narrow, hilly and winding, with drivers going far too fast and taking far too many chances – as seems to be typical in India.

One day, as 17 year-old Ayanna is walking down this road, the driver of a large truck doesn’t see her as he comes over a hill. In her final moments of life, she has a moment to wonder about what will happen to her after she dies.
——————————

Please continue to the survey. (Available through the ABI Bulletin Board on the home page.)

Again, please make sure you have taken the first survey before proceeding to the second one.

Over the years Karen and I have engaged in a lot of ministry through the internet by interacting in a number of forums. It has been an amazing opportunity to share the gospel and other biblical truth about a wide range of topics. Over the last couple of days I have been involved in some discussions over at Grace Centered Christian Forums (note: this is not an endorsement of this website because I haven’t yet fully investigated their theological positions).

One of the questions that was posted a couple of hours ago was related to the temptation that Christ experienced. It was a common question that almost everyone considers at some point: “Was Christ really tempted? And could he have sinned?”

As you might expect this has generated a number of responses in a short period of time. Some have represented the view that although Christ did not sin, he could have sinned. Those who hold this position, often also believe that it is possible for someone to lose their salvation and the two issues are connected according to this theology: that we can choose, just as Christ chose – and just as Jesus chose not to sin, although he could have, we can do the same. If we don’t, then we will be lost, unless we continually repent or choose not to sin (which many say is possible).

However, I believe the Scriptural response is: “Yes, Jesus was truly tempted and no, he could not have sinned.”

Then, the inevitable counter-response is: “But if Jesus could not have sinned, then he must not have been genuinely tempted.”

Being the Christmas season, I think it is a good time to consider what I would suggest is one of the most important aspects of the Incarnation – the nature of Christ in relation to temptation and sin.

The following is what I posted on the Grace Centered Christian Forum (although I have proof-read and edited this a bit from my forum post):

_________________________

Biblical Fact #1: Jesus was/is human (Matthew 8:20;John 8:40; Philippians 2:5-8; 1 Timothy 2:5)

Biblical Fact #2: Jesus was truly tempted – the Scripture plainly says that he was tempted (Hebrews 2:17; 4:15)

Biblical Fact #3: Jesus was/is God (Isaiah 9:6; John 10:30; 20:26-29; Philippians 2:5-8; Revelation 1:8-11)

Biblical Fact #4: God cannot sin by virtue of his perfect holiness (Leviticus 11:44; Joshua 24:19; 1 Peter 1:15; 1 John 1:15; Revelation 4:8)

Biblical conclusion: Jesus being the God-man, was truly tempted, but did not and could not sin.

How this could be true is as much a mystery as the Incarnation itself (how can God become a man?). To deny one or the other seems to be a futile (and arguably unnecessary) attempt to resolve the logical tension felt by humans (finite beings), but which involves a reality that can only be fully comprehended by God (an infinite being). I believe it is beyond our capacity to fully grasp. This doesn’t mean it is illogical. Rather, I think it simply involves “supra-human logic.”

Perhaps a simple (although not fully adequate) analogy would be the futility of trying to explain quantum physics or the special theory of relativity to a three year-old child.

Over the years I have used the following illustration (being an engineer at heart to help students try to somehow grasp the mutual truths of Jesus’ temptation and his inability to sin. It involves a piece of paper, a hydraulic ram, and a pressure gauge (or your fist and a concrete wall).

Let’s illustrate human nature as being like a piece of paper.

Let’s illustrate temptation as being like a ramrod capable of unlimited pounds of pressure per square inch.

Then place a pressure gauge on the end of the ramrod.

Now, hold the paper up (with nothing behind it) and run the ramrod up against it.

Question: How much pressure will the gauge register – no matter the force of the ramrod?
Answer: Very little – because the paper easily gives way and the pressure felt by the paper is almost nothing.

The point: The giving-way by the paper illustrates how easily we naturally fall into sin with very little pressure /temptation because of our sin nature.

Now, glue a piece of cardboard to the paper.
The cardboard illustrates our new nature as believers, coupled with our old weak nature.

Now, run the ramrod against the paper / cardboard combination.

Question: How much pressure will the gauge register now?
Answer: More. And the stiffer the cardboard (illustrating the more mature the Christian) – the more pressure that is registered by the gauge and therefore “felt” by the paper (illustrating the the human nature).

The point: The one who is most mature in Christ doesn’t feel the pressure of temptation less, but feels it more. This helps to illustrate why more mature Christians are more sensitive to the slightest pressure / temptation to sin than is the new / immature believer.

Now: Glue the paper to a massive block of tungsten steel that extends infinitely in all directions.
The block of steel illustrates the immovable, sinless nature of God.

Now, run the ramrod (remember the one capable of infinite force) against the paper.

Question: How much pressure will the gauge register now?
Answer: An infinite amount of pressure.

(If you want, you can approximate this test by trying to hit a piece of paper held in the air with your fist as hard as you can. Then tape the paper to a concrete wall and swing at it as hard as you can. Your now-broken hand experienced exactly the force felt by the paper. Honestly – it might be better to get one of your students to do this one.)

The point: By virtue of a human nature being coupled with the divine nature, Christ fully experienced the temptation to sin infinitely more than any human being. It was actually Christ’s inability to sin that made it possible for him to be fully tempted in every point as we are. No mere human has ever experienced the full force of temptation to sin.

It is not, as as been said, that “temptation implies the possibility of sin.” That would essentially be the same as saying that an invincible army cannot be attacked. (1)

And then Christ died for the sins of all (Romans 5:6; 1Corinthians 15:3; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2) who have given in to the full range of temptation – and he offers the free gift of salvation from sin to all who will believe, to all who will simply receive him by faith (John 1:12-13; 3:16; Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8-9).

What a wonderful Savior!

Have a very merry Christmas, and a grace-filled, joyous New Year!

Dave James

(1) Charles Ryrie in Basic Theology (p. 304) quoting the opposing views Hodge and Shedd.

(An article combining this post and the previous one on the Manhattan Declaration is available in downloadable and printable PDF, 2-column article format: Click here to download)

.

A week ago today, the Manhattan Declaration was released by Chuck Colson and almost 150 other signers at the National Press Conference. Since then there have been countless blogs and articles written about the 4700-word document and the response has been quite mixed.

Predictably, it has been denounced by liberals of all stripes who support the LGBT agenda and who advocate “a woman’s right to choose.” But neither has it been received well by those who would consider themselves to be evangelicals, but who also challenge the historical view that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior.

In contrast, a significant number of Christians have enthusiastically embraced the Manhattan Declaration. with the number of signers via the internet now at 184,780 and counting. They have joined the original signatories in voicing their concern that as America continues its turn to the left, led by the present administration, they are prepared to take a stand to protect life, marriage and religious liberty.

Yet, another view has been expressed by some Christians who have not signed the Manhattan Declaration. In this view, the Manhattan Declaration is itself a cause for concern, being seen as a misguided ecumenical cooperative effort that conservative evangelicals would do well to avoid. John MacArthur has written a cogent blog from this perspective.

To make matters more confusing for the average evangelical believer, it must be noted that there are good, solid, conservative theologians on both sides of the issue. This would tend to indicate that whatever our personal opinion might be, the “correct” response is probably not as obvious nor as certain as we might hope or desire. So, after a week of reading, talking, thinking and praying, I’m going to take my own stab at evaluating the Manhattan Declaration and developing a framework of principles for responding to this document, as well as the overall situation that precipitated it.

First, I would say that overall the Manhattan Declaration is a carefully crafted, well-worded document. It was obviously written out of both passion and conviction. It would be difficult to fault the drafters in their intentions or desire to make a difference in the “culture wars.”

Second, I think all who truly believe in the authority of Scripture should agree with the framers of the Manhattan Declaration concerning the three specific issues it addresses, namely, life, marriage and religious liberty. It affirms that life begins at conception and should be allowed to continue until natural death (Exodus 20:13; Job 1:21; Psalm 139:12, 16; Jeremiah 1:14). It affirms that marriage was instituted by God to be solely between a man and a woman and that sexual relations are to be only within that relationship (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:5,6; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). And it affirms the principle of religious liberty which seems to be legitimately rooted in the truth of  Matthew 22:21 (“Render unto Caesar…and to God…”) and Acts 5:29 (“We ought to obey God rather than men.”)

And third, I believe that as American citizens we have a legal right and a moral responsibility to participate in the democratic process in upholding and preserving the rights we have as guaranteed by the Constitution, as well as the ideals upon which this country was founded.

It could be argued that the Moral Majority, founded by Jerry Falwell in 1979, provides an historic backdrop and precedent for the Manhattan Declaration. The Moral Majority became the politically active extension of the Christian Right, which was riding the wave of the resurging political conservatism that swept Ronald Reagan into office in 1980. The Moral Majority sought to gain an influence in governmental policies and legislation, such that they would reflect or at least not contradict Christian morality – and thereby broadly shape, influence and guide the direction of American society as a whole.

A demographic map of the United States shows that geographically the entire country continues to be overwhelmingly conservative – both politically and socially. And this conservatism is certainly not limited to evangelical Christians. Therefore, it was considered expedient and prudent to be as broadly inclusive as possible to maximize the potential political influence of the movement. This meant that the Moral Majority consisted of not only conservative evangelicals, but virtually all types of conservative Protestants, Catholics, Jews and even Mormons who joined forces for the purpose of advocating common moral values with a unified voice.

Probably the most common argument in favor of evangelicals joining together with those from Catholic and Orthodox traditions in signing the Manhattan Declaration follows that used to defend the Moral Majority in the face of similar criticism. In this view, it is argued that because we share a common moral heritage with other theological traditions within Christendom, we can and should join together as allies in the culture wars against the common enemy of those morals. Therefore, the Manhattan Declaration is hailed as an opportunity for those who name the name of Christ to fulfill a long-neglected obligation to engage and even confront a society and an administration that is increasingly liberal, secular and humanist – and even anti-Christian in its bias. Looking at it this way, it is understandable why, as I noted earlier, many concerned Americans have already signed the document and I would assume that many have been conservative evangelicals.

However, I have not yet signed it myself because I have some questions and concerns about both the nature and the value of the Manhattan Declaration. At the risk of being dismissed, ridiculed or criticized as being too picky, too narrow-minded, divisive or just overly critical, I am going to present what I believe are some significant reasons why a born-again believer should consider not endorsing or signing the Manhattan Declaration.

The Manhattan Declaration begins with these words:

Christians are heirs of a 2,000year tradition of proclaiming God’s word

This is a statement of exclusivity, identifying the framers of the document as “Christians” as opposed to adherents of any of the other world religions. It is also intended to reflect Christian values and morals. As such, it must necessarily be viewed as an inherently Christian document. Consider the following quotes from the Manhattan Declaration:

we claim the heritage of those Christians Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths

Therefore, the writers of the Manhattan Declaration present it as a document by Christians on behalf of Christians. And as a Christian document, it discusses the issues of life and marriage within a framework of Christian morality. It derives its authority to speak about these moral issues from the Bible. The Manhattan Declaration reflects a very specific worldview which is informed by very specific theology. Therefore, not only is it a Christian document, it is first and foremost an inherently theological document – or at least theologically-driven. This point is extremely important to the discussion because for some, the defense of cooperation with Catholic and Orthodox writers and signers depends largely upon the validity of the argument that the Manhattan Declaration isn’t a theological document. If true, then it could be argued that theological differences are irrelevant to the task at hand and cooperation is not an example of unbiblical ecumenism. But, again, it is a Christian document and is therefore a theological document by nature. And being a theological document, not only does theology under-gird the moral argument set forth in the Manhattan Declaration, theology also forms the basis for what the writers consider to be their essential unity as a group. This is clearly reflected in the first paragraph under the Declaration section:

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the  following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image.

It is important to not miss the significance of this statement. When one discusses Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism for example, these are treated as world religions. And, of course, Christianity can be spoken of as a world religion, as well. But there is an important and fundamental distinction that must be remembered: A Christian in the biblical sense of the term does not merely mean someone who is an adherent of Christianity as a world religion. For someone to become a true Muslim, a person must simply make a decision to follow the teachings of Islam and live accordingly. However, the same is not true for biblical Christianity. For someone to become a true Christian, they must explicitly place their faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ and thereby be born-again of the Spirit of God. Someone does not become a Christian by merely adopting Christian traditions or by beginning to live a Christian lifestyle – or even by faithfully following the teachings of Christ. In 1994, Chuck Colson was involved with drafting the first Evangelicals and Catholics Together document. That document blurs and actually eliminates the distinction between Christians in the world-religion sense and Christians in the biblical sense, such that it seems clear that Mr. Colson considers the two as not only intersecting, but as synonymous as indicated by the next three quotes from the first ECT document:

As we near the Third Millennium, there are approximately 1.7 billion Christians in the world. About a billion of these are Catholics and more than 300 million are Evangelical Protestants.

We are Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who have been led through prayer, study, and discussion to common convictions about Christian faith and mission.

All who accept Christ as Lord and Savior are brothers and sisters in Christ. Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ.

Some may argue, however, that the two documents are fundamentally different in scope and purpose and therefore should not be compared or evaluated in this way. Yet, the essential philosophical /theological similarities between the two documents cannot be ignored because they reflect the broader philosophy out of which they were formulated:

Manhattan Declaration: We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. First ECT document: We are Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who have been led through prayer, study, and discussion to common convictions about Christian faith and mission. This statement cannot speak officially for our communities. It does intend to speak responsibly from our communities and to our communities.

Manhattan Declaration: We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty. First ECT document: There is a necessary connection between the visible unity of Christians and the mission of the one Christ. We together pray for the fulfillment of the prayer of Our Lord: “May they all be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, so also may they be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.” (John 17) We together, Evangelicals and Catholics, confess our sins against the unity that Christ intends for all his disciples. The one Christ and one mission includes many other Christians, notably the Eastern Orthodox and those Protestants not commonly identified as Evangelical. All Christians are encompassed in the prayer, “May they all be one.”

It seems appropriate to suggest that some  important linkage does exist between the Manhattan Declaration and the ECT document and that this linkage is intentional and by design. This shouldn’t be surprising given Mr. Colson’s key role in the formation of both documents.  Given that the purpose of the ECT document is inherently ecumenical, it seems reasonable to more carefully explore the potential ecumenical issues raised directly by the Manhattan Declaration. Likewise it seems reasonable to at least examine whether or not those issues might be sufficient to give legitimate reasons for withholding support and participation in the  Manhattan Declaration. I will conclude my response to the Manhattan Declaration, in a couple of days and try to make a case for why Christians should or should not be involved with this initiative or others like it. It doesn’t seem that there is a one-size-fits-all answer, but I can discuss general principles related to the role of Christians in government and political activism. Can and should Christians engage and confront the culture and government in their social context – and what kind of ecumenical alliances can be formed to accomplish this? Ecumenical alliances and civil disobedience. Just what should we think and do? And what, if any, is the potential historical significance of the Manhattan Declaration?

This appears to be the essence of Brian McLaren’s claims concerning John 14:6 in one of the chapters of his upcoming book A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith (to be released in February 2010).

On his blog, Mr. McLaren writes the following in response to a comment received from a reader concerning John 14:6:

I reworked that material into an important chapter in my upcoming book, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith. The passage is often used to answer the question, “How do we relate to people of other religions?” But a careful reading of the verse (“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”) in its immediate and broader context shows that its most likely meaning is almost the opposite of the way it’s commonly used. Who is Jesus speaking to? What specific question is he answering? What does “come to the Father” mean? What do way, truth, and life mean? What’s the dramatic setting for the statement? (If people think the answers to those questions are either immaterial or self-evident, I don’t think they’ve really struggled with the text, nor have they taken seriously what is for John an extremely important statement – namely, John 6:63 in relation to 6:55 (John 6:55) … Jesus speaks on a “spirit” level and people hear/read him on a “flesh” level. This theme goes way back to 3:6 (John 3:6).) What a fascinating gospel we have in John! Working on a close and comprehensive reading of John for that chapter in the book constantly moved me to wonder, amazement, and worship.

McLaren notes that the “most likely meaning” of John 14:6 “is almost the opposite of the way it’s commonly used.” He is apparently referring to the way this passage has been generally understood within conservative evangelicalism, which is that Jesus is stating that salvation is found exclusively in and through him. And in the broader context of New Testament teaching concerning salvation, it would be understood that Jesus is affirming that salvation comes only to those who have explicit knowledge of him and who have explicitly placed their faith in him. In other words, conservative Bible students have historically understood Jesus to be teaching that salvation is found exclusively in him personally and not that there is universal salvation for all through his work on the cross in a general way.

However, McLaren suggests that a study of the verse, “in its immediate and broader context,” reveals that Jesus is teaching universal salvation. So, let’s consider the contextual issues and the questions he says we should be asking.

When: It is at the end of the passover meal that Jesus has just shared with his disciples on the night he was betrayed. And now, Jesus has just sent Judas away, saying, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” (John 13:27)

Who: Jesus speaks to the remaining eleven disciples.

What: He speaks of the glorification of the Father and the Son (John 13:31-32), his departure (John 13:33), the significance of their love for one another (John 13:34-35), and Peter’s denial (13:36-38).

After he tells Peter of his impending denial, Jesus then returns to the issue of Peter’s concern about his soon-departure. Jesus tells them that their hearts should not be troubled because he is not only going to prepare a place for them, but that he will also return to take them back to be with him (John 14:1-4).

Jesus concludes by saying, “You know the way to the place where I am going.”

Thomas then responds, “Lord, we do not know where you are going…” and then poses the question, “…how can we know the way?”  It is to this question that McLaren directs our attention as the immediate context of Jesus’ statement: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

And then, very importantly, Jesus says, “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; and from now on you know him and have seen him.” This is important, because, among other things, it gives insight into the exclusivity of the “I am the way” statement. Note that Jesus did not say, “If you had known the Father, you would have known me.”

Jesus was speaking to those who already had a personal relationship with him. And it is because of this relationship and through this relationship that his disciples were able to know the Father (have a relationship with him). Jesus said that it was only through the Son that they could have this relationship to the Father.

McLaren then directs our attention back to John chapter 3 – to the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus – so that we can be sure to understand the “broader context.” Good advice.

Nicodemus would have been the equivalent of what we would consider a seminary-trained, conservative, theologian – a scholar who not only thoroughly knew the Hebrew Scriptures, but someone who worked hard to live consistent with what he knew to be the demands of those Scriptures. And it is armed with this knowledge that Nicodemus addresses Jesus: “We know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” (John 3:2)

Nicodemus was right. But neither his knowledge nor his apparent acceptance of this truth was enough to establish a relationship with the Father or secure him a place in the kingdom of God – which is precisely why Jesus then told him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3: 3) And, of course, later in the conversation Jesus said, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

From this conversation and the one in John 14, it is clear that being born again and possessing eternal life are directly and inseparably connected to having a personal relationship with Jesus, which one enters into by faith. In John 14, Jesus spoke of preparing a place and the way (or pathway) to that place. This place was the Father’s house, his kingdom.

In summary: Jesus unequivocally states that there is only one way to the Father and into the Father’s kingdom. Jesus unequivocally states that he is personally that one way. The disciples knew the way and were on that way only because of their personal relationship to Jesus. Salvation is not applied universally to all on the general basis of Christ’s work on the cross and definitely not because of some general belief in God as taught in any given religious system.

As always, the context does provide the correct understanding of John 14:6.