The Transmission of Knowledge (Fair Use)
The Epistemological Conditions for Salvation
By Scout
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32
“The Bible simply cannot be read like any other book. It is a mystery because it is a coded book.”
HWA, MOA, p. 5
Epistemology is the study of all aspects of knowledge. The question I wish to pose here is whether some requisite level of knowledge of orthodox Christian dogmatics, among other graces, is required for salvation to happen. A case in point is the Thief on the Cross.
The Thief was a member of the Elect, called and chosen from the foundation of the Cosmos (Ephesians 1:4), had very little knowledge of theology that we know of, yet at the moment of death he expressed belief in Jesus (Luke 23:42). On the other hand, his knowledge was acquired under circumstances more intense than what we can conceive of. He shared in the passion of Jesus. It is fair to say that the Thief had great trust but not much knowledge. At the other end of the spectrum from the Thief, there are people who believe that the correct knowledge of doctrine is extraordinarily important for salvation, to the point of being Gnostic. Gnostics believed that “the principal element of salvation to be direct knowledge of the hidden divinity, attained via mystical or esoteric insight (Wikipedia).” But, in spite of the varied issues concerning knowledge, I believe there is an epistemological requirement for salvation.
Angular Trajectory
What if someone read the Bible, misunderstood it, and was 180 degrees out in belief from what it actually said? Is it plausible that a person with this state of knowledge could be classed as a Christian, and could we expect that person to receive salvation? I don’t think we can reasonably expect that. What if the person were not 180 degrees out but was instead 90 degrees out? Would that be enough salvific knowledge? How about 5 degrees out? Most of us could only dream of being just 5 degrees out.
Let me add that in my little analogy above, that zero degrees out is perfect understanding, and I believe such a state of knowledge may exist, but I don’t believe we as humans will ever attain it in this lifetime. Our salvation is in faith and not in certainty. So, for each of us, our departure from perfect knowledge is some angular measure greater than zero. I am not concerned about the unattainable perfect state of knowledge but about what degree of knowledge is required for salvation.
The reason why I know none of us have perfect Biblical knowledge, not even HWA, is because Paul, one of the great Apostles, said that we see through a glass darkly and he did not exempt himself or anyone else from this limitation. But we need to think about his statement a little more. While Paul attests that there are things we just do not understand and will not in this lifetime, there are things that we do understand. We do see something on the other side of the “glass.” The glass is not opaque. There is an essential body of knowledge, though partial, that can be understood and applied.
Jesus also said that the elect would not be deceived (Matt. 24:24). This means that those elected to salvation during this age would have tenacious command of a certain body of knowledge. And even a tsunami of false prophets could not dislodge that body of knowledge from the grasp of the elect. So, there is a body of knowledge, bestowed in grace, that is associated with election to salvation. The act of knowledge acquisition itself may be classed with works as opposed to faith, but the actual and effective comprehension of salvific knowledge is a miraculous act of grace.
Knowledge Leading to Salvation?
Now the waters get choppy. What is that body of knowledge? The Thief on the Cross is nowhere characterized as having been a Christian who had heard the preaching of Jesus sometime before misfortune befell him. This makes it seem as if the knowledge level for salvation is indeed low. On the other hand, Paul upbraids the Galatians for being taken in by the Circumcision Party on the nuanced topic of the Law of Moses as a path to salvation. Paul is expecting the Galatians to have a fairly sophisticated understanding of the complex topic of faith versus works.
And, of course, centuries later, we find the church engaging with very complex topics which seem to me to be conjectural. Michael Servetus was a famous scientist in the Sixteenth Century. But he did not believe in the Nicene formulation of the Trinity, along with some other unorthodox beliefs. So, he was denounced by John Calvin and was burned alive on a stack of his own books in Geneva in 1553 by the city council. Precious Calvin did have the magnanimity to ask that Servetus be beheaded instead of burnt at the stake. (Sorry, I think Calvin was a blatant heretic.) So, the specter of correct knowledge was turned into a devouring monster.
Armstrongism cornered the market on salvific knowledge. Armstrongists church history claims that salvific knowledge went underground eighteen and a half centuries ago and only re-emerged through HWA at the end-time. So, salvific knowledge is inaccessible except through HWA’s little booklet theology. This essentially invalidates all of mainstream Christianity as a source of saving knowledge. This special knowledge is solely an Armstrongist asset that can be obtained only through fealty to their denomination. While this view seems like an odd backwater religion, in fact, it is quite public. I got this from Google AI:
“Herbert W. Armstrong believed that he was God's messenger who restored the original truth of the Bible, which he claimed traditional Christianity had misinterpreted since the first century. He positioned himself as the only source of understanding the true gospel, stating that God had revealed the answers to him in the "end time". He used the Bible as a "coded book" that was only deciphered by him.”
So, there are many cases that we can look at that seem to prescribe different levels of salvific knowledge. Creeds, I think, were an attempt to identify a slice of knowledge that is essential to salvation. But in the final analysis, my argument fades to ambiguity. I believe there is some knowledge that you must believe in as a Christian, but I don’t know what it is. I could make a conjectural list, but my list is going to be different from the lists of others. But, perhaps, there is a consensus to be found here. I am prepared to accept the fact that a consensus list, the intersection of different views, might be smaller than I think.
Summation
God is the judge. Maybe salvific knowledge is different for different people living in different times and places. Maybe it is the growth in knowledge and not some fixed level. Maybe there are some genuine Christians stuck in Armstrongist denominations, seeing things through a glass way more darkly than most, but still adjudged to be Christians. Maybe knowledge is a test of character – those who are proud of their special knowledge will trip over their pride. What I do not believe is that the Bible, the book of salvation, is a coded book that was misunderstood for eighteen and a half centuries, and now only HWA can decode it for you. The death of Michael Servetus was a tragedy, and Calvinists should perform liturgies of penance each Sunday for his death. Finally, I still believe there is a level of knowledge required for salvation. While I can blithely make the simple assertion, I must admit that what that body of knowledge is remains elusive.
23 comments:
This was thought provoking on several levels, Scout. I, too, like analogies because they tend to elucidate, clarify, make difficult or nebulous concepts more readily able to be absorbed. As someone who spends recreational time dabbling as my own inner musician, I often like musical analogies. One that strikes me is that when comparing mainstream Christianity and Armstrongism, I get a little help from a principle advanced by Joe Perry of Aerosmith, who was quoted as saying, "You can make a Stratocaster sound like a Les Paul, but you can never make a Les Paul sound like a Stratocaster!" Will let readers chew on that one for a while!
In considering the elect, one Christian school of thought is that the state of electness is generational, just as there are also generational curses. (Deut 5:9; Ex 34:7, and several other scriptures reference this principle. Perhaps the thief was born into such an elect family, went astray as a prodigal son, and the thought processes he underwent during a long and painful death on the cross next to Jesus, with the added power of Jesus Himself, provided final clarity. Of course, Armstrongism dismisses the beauty and inspirational value of this tale by referencing their comma-splice theory. Wouldn't you just know it???
I've always preferred percentages, because they are much closer to reality than the lab-condition theoretical designations of black and white, I-O, binary, polar opposite schools of thought in which the majority of humans tend to revel. Percentages are similar to grading on a curve, and if God uses that method, with grace covering the deficit, how can we know where we fall until all of the results are all in? (And no, I am not using this to suggest "soul sleep"!) But, I think that intent has much to do with the final result, ie what one intentionally does with the knowledge available to him or to her. However, we're still not there. Next question, I'm wondering where that leaves one who learned from a teacher who had miniscule understanding, and who diligently applied basically anti-Christian principles in his religious philosophy, and presented a de-emphasized version of Jesus, leaning on Moses instead. We all know many very well intentioned people who allowed HWA to guide them in this direction!
I'm also wondering if the basic Gnosticism of which you speak, might be Noahide law, another covenant based on scripture, which HWA rejected, in spite of James's supporting edict following the first Jerusalem Council. HWA clearly seemed to be in the camp of the Circumcision Party.
There are many things we learn from our life experiences, As I understand it, Unitarians believe that all of our paths lead back to God. A crack whore learns or experiences many things through her daily routine that would make most of us cringe. You might say, that by going through the process of elimination she learns to distinguish between right and wrong in a way effective to her, who knows, possibly in the only way she can learn. A Christian missionary in China learns the value of right over wrong in a completely different way. A mass retaliator, sooner or later, will witness the results of his interactions with others, and will eventually choose kinder and gentler ways. It would seem to me that our best course is to live life, learning how to identify goodness, and to strive to be a force for good in all aspects of our lives without being judgmental and looking down upon others. Work on getting our personal percentages up, and depending on grace for the rest. Borrowing from Eastern Religion, doing good in a way that also produces good Karma. Surely, that of itself is a rather Herculean task.
BB
Thank you for this most thoughtful post Scout.
The old saying ‘the more I know the less I understand and the more I understand the less I know’, comes to mind. Like many, I have lost friends in wwcog who died sincerely believing in doctrines like BI. While this is a doctrine demonstrably false were they saved, in sprite of believing in a doctrine so flawed. I believe they were indeed saved. We don’t have to be necessarily right in doctrinal understanding as to be exhibiting behaviour to our fellow man, our neighbours, that reflect Christ our King. If these doctrines and our understanding of theology take us away from reflecting Christ in our behaviour in our hearts, then we are in trouble. God is indeed judge as you pointed out. I do not doubt this is a topic that Armstrongism will find difficult to consider in their black and white worldview. As it exposes them deeply. HWA was not a repository of all knowledge and nor was MOA. As Paul said we know so little and see vaguely, but we have just enough. That is why we have this wonderful gift of grace.
The thief on the cross has been used erroneously by some to show God has no conditions or level of knowledge required for salvation. The thief wasn't baptised so baptism isn't important, nor the Lord's supper, or other Christian dogmatics. What that way of thinking overlooks is, although he had no real knowledge, he possessed a quality (the condition) necessary for salvation to happen in the first place, "humility"!
The very first step in the salvation process is God's grace, by which we are saved, and according to Scripture, humility proceeds that. Both James and Peter (quoting Proverbs 3:34) tells us that " God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5).
Where does this "humility" originate? God? Us? Circumstances? Right off the top of my head, I can't say. But we do know that salvation itself is an act of God. We are HIS workmanship. HE is the Potter, we are the clay. HE "writes His law upon our heart"! But before any of that can happen, something must take place in us that allows this process to work.
Proverbs 15:33 says, " the fear of the Lord IS the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility ". The thief wasn't baptised, nor did he practice many of the things we deem important, but he did posses this quality that was pleasing to God, and he will be rewarded accordingly.
Another great thought provoking post Scout!
Byker Bob wrote, “It would seem to me that our best course is to live life, learning how to identify goodness, and to strive to be a force for good in all aspects of our lives without being judgmental and looking down upon others.”
I believe this is a profound statement. God is the ultimate Good. And I believe we as human beings are created by nature to seek The Good. We sometimes do not understand what Good really is. Adolf Hitler thought it was “good” to exterminate the Jews. The principle of seeking Good in his life was operative, he just did not know what good actually was. And it is this seeking that God uses to bring people to salvation in their due season. I believe that many people will live their lives during this age and the only contact that they will have with God is in their pursuit of what is genuinely Good. Like a father taking care of his family or a mother loving her children. People, when they are good, are Godly.
But here is where the knowledge part comes into play. Can a Buddhist who really strives to be a good person in his relations with others, as God defines good, receive salvation? C.S. Lewis said “yes” to this question. And many American Christians believe in a soteriology of Inclusivism. This is the idea that if you are good, no matter what religion, your goodness is redemptive. If you are a Buddhist who lives a life inclined towards good, you will receive salvation. I do not align with this because it is as pure a form of salvation by works that you can find. But the placidity of my belief in salvation by knowing faith is put in disarray by Paul when he wrote, “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts.” This is undeniably New Testament salvific language.
Cutting to the chase, I believe ones view of the doctrine of Hell comes into the picture here. I believe that Hell is, in Greek, kolasis. And in Matthew 25:46, “kolasin aionion” (pruning of this age) refers to a post-mortem rehabilitative process of finite duration. And it is in this process the salvific knowledge, absent at this time from the lives of non-believers, is added to those, the good and the bad, who are consigned there.
Scout
I have the firm belief that those who did a science focused course in high school and perhaps a course such as chemistry or engineering in university, have a natural advantage over others. This is because studying science drives home the point that there's a solid reality. People often betray this advantage, but the advantage was there.
At death the thief's spirit and Christ's spirit went to God in paradise, and the thief's spirit will be "put into" the thief's physical body at the time of the resurrection, either at Christ's return or a 1000 years later. IMO.
You may be on to something, 7:37, another ingredient to enhance this gumbo which we call human life. One of the very few precepts that HWA taught which is actually quite valid is that God and Science are mutually complimentary. But then, HWA went to work doing what he always did, which was to diminish or debunk science as it is taught, and then to unnaturally "shoehorn" it into being compatible with his own teachings. He had an uncanny need to make everything which supports a normal, noncultic life untrustworthy. The advertising executive within him was seemingly compelled to create mistrust in everything which competed with his own "perfect solution". He did a Jefferson's Bible on every field which he felt competed with what he taught, and created strawmen examples to drive his point home.
The high school which I attended was very strong on science. I loved Chemistry and Physics classes. When Douglas Becker used to comment here, one of the concepts he introduced was "spatial intelligence". As I understand it, this is the ability to visualize parts of a whole from various angles or perspectives, and to understsnd how these parts work together. I had never heard this quality called that prior to Douglas's comments, but immediately realized that science and math classes impart or enhance this spatial intelligence. When one has that training from a young age, it becomes part of the inner mental system or core, the part which evaluates all incoming data or knowledge, and determines how each bit or byte fits or does not fit. We have certainly seen many examples of people on this and other sites, in which the people evaluate all incoming data based upon the principles of Armstrongism instead. Often, we can't understand why incontrovertible facts can be presented, yet some have that seemingly uncanny ability to reject or misclassify those facts. You have just hit on why.
BB
Anonymous 7:37 wrote, “This is because studying science drives home the point that there's a solid reality.”
I am going to say something on behalf of Armstrongism. That is, I think Armstrongists may have a better perspective on reality than what is currently found in the Christian Movement. That may seem an alarming statement, but let me finish. Armstrongism is a Monistic religion. They believe that everything exists on the same spectrum. Christianity is not Monistic but Dualistic. Christianity believes there are two separate spectrums: a physical realm and a spirit realm. These two realms are based on separate categories and separate realities.
For example, GTA stated once that if you had a rocket ship and enough time, you could fly to where God’s throne is located in the sides of the North and see God if you dared. The idea is that the heavenly realm is continuous with the physical realm. And the Armstrongist anthropology asserts that human beings are not a different class from God but are of the God kind. God has a body and we have bodies just like his except that for a while we are perishable but will become imperishable. We are on the same spectrum with God. The abode of God is not in a different dimension but in our dimension and God walks around in it on two feet just like we do. God is way up there in the Third Heaven and it is just the next stop after the Second Heaven. Everything co-resides in the same reality.
Christianity, I believe, sees two realms that are disjoint. We are in the physical realm but when we die we go to paradise or the intermediate state in a different realm. There is the Natural and the Supernatural and they are disjoint. This dualism can be bridged by God because he is both immanent and transcendent. He can step into our Cosmos if he wants to as if he were climbing into a limousine.
I think that the Armstrongists may be right. Reality may be Monistic but in a different way than they imagine. I think everything created is inside the uncreated God. Not like a swallowed pill is inside a person but we are within his Being. Our being is and extension of his Being. And, in fact, there is nothing that lies outside his being. And, in fact, the idea of nothing has no objective existence. It has only a logical existence, like, the set of all the negative numbers greater than zero. There is no physical correlate to this logical idea of nothing. There has always been something. There has never been nothing. And the something is God. And the Cosmos is organized from his substance. Paul said on Mar’s Hill: “For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.”
I think the Armstrongist Monistic view is flawed. I don’t believe God is anthropomorphic. But I do believe we live in God’s realm. My two cents.
Scout
I've been a panentheist for a number of years now. It's the only view which makes sense to me.
BB
I hear you, Scout. Also one of the things that turned me off about your garden variety Evangelicals is the level of superstition that they embrace, while at the same time rejecting verifiable science. They are fodder for all manner of conspiracy theories. I also do not respect the logic behind their political decisions. They are so easily conned and fooled!
One can be a participant in the Christian philosophy without rejecting solid science and verifiable history. Hard to know where all of their contaminants are coming from, and what causes them to embrace them. If Galileo were alive today, they'd be pushing for his incarceration as an enemy combatant in Guantanamo!
BB
Byker Bob 4:53
I think there have always been people down through history that regard belonging to some denomination to be a identifying badge. Maybe their family in its history has always belonged to a certain denomination. Their attendance at church on Sunday is a fraternity meeting. It has nothing to do with Jesus and theology.
My uncle was an officer in the Air Force and was stationed near Biloxi, Mississippi for a while. He attended the services of his denomination while there and told me he was appalled at the attitude of the church members. It was a fairly large denomination. It wasn't a little backwater church. It has congregations all over the USA. He said down there they spoke about Afro-Americans like they were animals.
I saw a webpage for a big church in southern Texas that proclaimed themselves to be a great New Testament church. There were pictures of various members of the congregation involved in picnics and the like. I suddenly noticed that something was missing. There were no people of color in attendance. It was a large, self-aggrandizing church and everybody was white. If an Afro-American family were looking for a church and happened on the church's webpage they would get the picture very quickly.
The statement is "Our brand of Pseudo-Christianity is for whites only".
Nominalism has always been a great parasitic vegetation on the Christian Movement. And I believe nominalism prevails among the rural, right-wing, anti-science, white evangelicals in the USA - especially in the South. Those congregations are somewhat like the Dutch Reformed Church among the Afrikaners in South Africa. Those churches are led by their commitment to their cultural milieu not the Holy Spirit.
Scout
Great post and commentary. I too believe that everything exists in God. To me, this points us in the direction of inclusivity, tolerance, forgiveness, and grace. As for the questions posed by the original post, I have noted many times here and on my own blog that Jesus singled out love as the thing that would identify his followers. Likewise, the Apostle Paul said that love was greater than knowledge, and knowledge did NOT make it into his listing of the Fruits of the Spirit. John wrote that GOD IS LOVE! I may be going out on a limb, but I'm thinking that the evidence of love in a person is much more important than what he/she knows or what any of us think we know.
Words on blogs can be shallow and meaningless. All hype with no substance. Love is only expressed towards cronies whilst the outcasts are shunned.
Both Lonnie 837 and annon 1112 make valid points. God IS love and He imparts His love to us by His Spirit (Romans 5:5). But, Scripture mentions several types of love, some of which do not meet God's standard and approval, because it is selfish, biased, and worldly (see Matt.5:46-47, John 12:25, 15:19, 1 John 2:15, 4:20).
The love of God is well defined. Romans 13:8-10 tells us,
"Owe no one anything but to love one another. Love is the fulfilling of the law".
Miller Jones 8:37
Thanks for your response. It tempers my view. My post falls in a category that does not provoke much debate with Armstrongists. The topic does not lend itself to the casual slinging of proof-texts but is a matter of HWA’s methodology – his use of knowledge. As a question of methodology, it lies in the Forbidden Zone for many Armstrongists – they won’t touch it.
Many times, I have thought that we do ourselves a disservice by trying to decompose the process of salvation as I have done. I think salvation is, rather, a holistic package. It is the full spectrum of Christ’s personhood in us through the Holy Spirit, fully integrated and wholly operative. I think, for instance, that love is knowledge in action but neither love nor knowledge is going to happen without faith. Knowledge nurtures faith but does not cause faith. I believe faith is a prevenient grace and knowledge is mostly a later acquisition. And love is the product of Christ in us. But because it is a package, it all seems to happen in concert – many moving parts each doing its job.
Peter Enns wrote a book titled “The Sin of Certainty” that sets forth the theme that many believers go down a frustrating path of trusting in the certainty of their knowledge rather than trusting in God. And their knowledge can never be certain. The Bible does not cater to certain knowledge but to trust in God. I think that many Armstrongists are trying to find that elusive certainty. That is why many of them are preoccupied with calendar controversies, numerology, OT law, naturopathy, type-antitype prophecies, alternative history, conspiracies and ceremony. They think salvation is in knowing what is correct. Successive splintering in their denominations usually correlates with successive refinements in “knowledge”. Enns wrote the following:
“We’re not always too happy about lettering go of our egos and telling our overactive thought world to take a seat over there and be quiet. “Knowing” has been in charge for so long, we forget all the other stuff we read in the Bible about how we are to act toward each other.”
Knowledge is important but it only has value in its subordination to love. And I believe that is why God, who knows everything and can create knowledge, says that he is love.
Scout
Sadly the only certainty is that half the heartfelt words typed on this blog is done for the wider audience.
Meanwhile at the coal face, people are judged and condemned regularly, told they only have a 'partial knowledge' of Jesus Christ and that their 'fake and false'& 'actors on a stage' ! Nit picked to death and then shunned as a marking for all to know the outcasts. What a time to be alive!
Scout 136
I know you are frustrated by the lack of debate this post has generated but allow me to stir the pot.
You say you "don't believe God is anthropomorphic". Most do not. I can't say for sure, even though Scripture is loaded with many examples, not only as God relates to humans, but the interaction between members of the Godhead (see Acts 7:55-56).
Whether He is or isn't, it makes one wonder how the " Trinity " looks and functions in its present state. Presently, we have the Father and the HS, which according to many, have no form or shape, then in the middle, there is Jesus Christ, who has form and shape by virtue of His resurrection, now sitting on the right (something) of the Most High (Hebrews 1:3). I may be coming across as a fool here, but as taught, it is a weird arrangement.
Scripture gives many descriptions of spiritual glory (Rev.1:14-16, Matt.13:43, 17:2, Daniel 10:6, 12:3), of which we, God's children shall one day bear the image of the heavenly. Yet, Orthodox Christianity wants to lock down Jesus Christ to a body of flesh and bone for eternity merely because it is mentioned once in Scripture post resurrection (Luke 24:36-43). Is that justified? So with this, we now have the Father and HS, who are spirit, and a flesh and bone JC in the middle?
Is anthropomorphism merely God manifesting Himself for our benefit (like the Organians on Star Trek), or is there more to the idea of being created after His image and likeness? Also, could not Christ, when He appeared as flesh and bone and eating fish with the guys, have been manifesting Himself in that form for that purpose? After all, He couldn't exactly interact with them appearing as He looks in Rev.1:14-16 could He?
You are right, we see through a glass darkly!
This post hasn't generated debate BP8 because it's awful, that's why. It's tedious and jumps to conclusions scripture completely contradicts.
Scout, over the course of my life, I had felt as if we, the human race, had become enlightened racially, that is, moved towards the ideals taught by Dr. King. It sickens me that the people you described in your final paragraph are now feeling a sense of empowerment which threatens all of that progress. I refuse to follow them or to let them get away with it. Most people are very likable. Sometimes all of us find ourselves at counter purposes with others, but that does not mean that they are to be hated. I just boggles my mind that some deliberately decide to hate other humans simply because they are different from themselves. An exclusively white group is not an accident. It is a deliberate construct, one that is caused by similar attitudes amongst the group. And, I'va always said that if my friends are not welcome, then I am not welcome!
BB
Anonymous 10:50
Why don't you give me an example of something I have written in this post that scripture "completely contradicts" and I will discuss it with you.
Scout
BP8 6:31
There is a rational argument as to why God does not have a body. It is not like a simplistic argument as to whether God should wear this garment or that garment.
Have a look at this article:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-transcendence-of-god-and.html
Scout
Scout 755
I have read this post (transcendence) before and, although it is entertaining, it is human rationale at best. Being human, our speculation is important to us, especially when we see through a glass darkly. But why should that trump what is revealed in Scripture? Why the need to explain things away? Some believe Adam (Genesis 2) is a myth. Yet, we know there was a creation. There had to be a first man at some point. Why flat out reject the biblical creation account in favor of human rationale?
God is what He is whether He has a body or not. We can come up with humorous arguments (does God need a nose) but that proves nothing! One can have a body without having a nose. A female body has no penis, yet their body functions as is.
A logical question is, how does God having a body hold Him back? Does that degrade Him or His majesty? Jesus Christ NOW has a body and is He not still God? Is He not still a member of your so called "Trinity"? Is He not still functioning as God and " upholding all things by the word of His power", Hebrews 1:3?
Human rationale verses Scripture? I'll take Scripture!
I think the entire premise of the article completely contradicts scripture, particularly:
"What if someone read the Bible, misunderstood it and was 180 degrees out in belief from what it actually said?"...is it plausible that a person could be classed as a Christian?... could we expect that person to receive salvation? I don't think we can reasonably expect that. What instead it was 90 degrees out and not 180? 5 degrees out?
"I still believe there is a level of knowledge required for salvation. I must admit that what that body of knowledge is remains elusive."
I don't think it's wise to think like this. It could result in awful behaviour towards others who've been deemed as "degrees out, lesser than" and is a very rocky road to go down with God.
Has Nicodemus (John 3:3) encounter with Jesus been thrown out of bibles these days too? Nicodemus a religious leader, went in the night to ask Jesus "What must I do to be saved?"
Jesus reply "Truly, truly, I say to you unless one is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God" is not to be ignored. Jesus gave Nicodemus a pointed explanation in scripture that night. Essentially Nicodemus's journey to salvation involved understanding and accepting Jesus as the Messiah and trusting in him for salvation, and being born again through the Holy Spirit.
Scripture after all calls Jesus the Captain of our Salvation and Jesus never told Nicodemus about any "body of knowledge required for salvation."
The Holy Spirit plays a role in salvation. It is an agent of regeneration, conviction, cleansing and empowerment for believers to live a new life in Jesus Christ.
In the beatitudes Jesus teaches "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven" Nowhere in the beatitudes does Jesus say "Blessed are those who are perfect in knowledge, who are zero degrees out."
I believe 1 Corinthians 13:12 to be an greatly encouraging scripture. The Matthew Henry concise commentary is a long but inspiring explanation of what i think Apostle Paul was meaning. The New Living translation of the scripture is much shorter but explains it well:
"Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All we know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely."
Post a Comment