In a book I’m currently reading, I came across the following quotes. Those of you who follow the teachings of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, and the Grace Evangelical Society, will appreciate them:
The phrase accept Christ as your personal Savior is not in the Bible. Even personal Savior is absent….
Having your sins forgiven is no doubt a part of (or a prelude to) salvation. But in the Bible salvation means much more than that: if anything, being forgiven is the starting line, not the finish line, of salvation.
Nowhere in the Bible is the term sinner’s prayer mentioned, and no one in the Bible ever says it — at least not in the form that prospective converts are taught to say it today. And it wasn’t until the last 150 year or so that Christian services included “invitations” or “altar calls.” Furthermore, no one has ever or will ever walk down an isle or raise a hand to “get saved.”
This author goes on to say that the word “salvation means rescue –especially rescue from sickness, trouble, distress, fear, or (this especially) from enemies and their violence.” Most passages, he says, that talk about “salvation” are not talking about “being saved from hell.”
These quotes all sound like solid Free Grace theology, right? Well, guess who wrote them? Not Zane Hodges (though he wrote many similar statements in his life), not Bob Wilkin (though he teaches nearly idential ideas), or any of the other common “Free Grace” teachers like Charlie Bing, Earl Radmacher, Rene Lopez, Stephen Lewis, or Dave Anderson.
No, instead, these came from the writings of emerging church leader Brian McLaren in the book he cowrote with Tony Campolo entitled Adventures in Missing the Point. Ironically, many in Free Grace circles condemn Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, and others in their camp as heretics. I’ll admit that I did too… until I started reading some of their books a few years ago. Then I discovered that even if I didn’t agree with everything they wrote, they still have some fantastic things to say.
The bottom line is this: Is there someone you condemn as a heretic? Have you actually read their books and listened to their teachings, or is your accusation just something you heard from someone else? Let’s stop pointing fingers and start listening to each other.
There are quite a few writers out there that I don’t agree with everything they say. But I chalk that up to just being a part of life. I will not discount all of what they say just because I may disagree with a few words or a few beliefs they might have. I would rather have some of the story than none of it at all.
This is the only way to read. If we only read authors we agreed with, there would be no books we could read. Not even the Bible in my case…I’m always arguing with what God says there….
Hi Jeremy,
I haven’t commented on your blog in several years (not since the “free grace wars” petered out) but it is one of the blogs that I follow via my news reader.
I followed the link you provided over to McLaren’s web site and looked it over. I didn’t spend too much time there but I wanted to know how how he defined the gospel (by gospel I mean what does a person have to believe to be saved). I agree that not all passages in the Bible that speak to salvation are referring to salvation from the lake of fire. However that doesn’t mean that there is no lake of fire and that there are no passages that speak to salvation from it.
Guess what? I couldn’t find any reference to the gospel. It actually seems like he teaches an updated version of the Social Gospel. The quote of his that you gave is true as far as it goes but he seems to spend a lot of time saying what he isn’t but he really doesn’t say what he is. I don’t see what he has to offer. Or, let me re-phrase this as a question: What does someone like Brian McLaren have to offer someone like me who believes that there is absolute truth?
Maybe he doesn’t use the term “heretic” but I am willing to bet that people like me really irritate people like him.
Glenn
Glenn,
Good to see you again. Glad you stuck around. Are the wars really over, or is there just a lull?
Anyway, you are right about McLaren. He’s a slippery fellow. He loves to ask questions rather than make statements. He definitely would have a different understanding of “gospel” then you. But then, my definition is probably different as well…
I think that McLaren would say that he could help show you that the gospel is way more than just about getting saved, but is also a way of living life in the world here and now, and living this way will shift and transform how you view others, read Scripture, and interact with God.
I don’t agree with everything McLaren says, but he will definitely challenge your thinking!
Hi Jeremy,
Thank you for your reply. I have no desire to start a fight over any of this but I want to add one more comment. If I am understanding your response correctly, and I may not be, that McLaren doesn’t separate justification and sanctification the way that most protestants do. That makes it sound as if he is going back to the Roman Catholic concept of salvation through works but with a different opinion of what those works should be.
As I had mentioned in my previous comment, I am one of those people who believes in absolute truth. I believe in absolute truth because relative truth is no truth at all. I have thought about it and decided that Jesus Christ really is “the way and the truth and the life” and I cannot reconcile what McLaren says with the truth that has been revealed in scripture. I am sure he is sincere but I really don’t see where we even have a basis for discussion. We both understand the choices that we have and have decided to follow separate paths.
I hope you find what you are looking for.
Glenn
Disagreements are welcome here.
I believe in absolute truth also.
Regarding McLaren’s view of salvation, all I was pointing out is that he agrees with the vast majority of FG writers and speakers that “salvation” (Gk. soteria) in Scripture rarely refers to justification alone. Bob Wilkin, Zane Hodges, Earl Radmacher, and many others have said exactly the same thing on numerous occasions.
See, for example, this post by Bob Wilkin: http://www.faithalone.org/wordpress/?p=247
Jeremy and Glenn – I don’t think that Brian would say he doesn’t believe in absolute truth – I could be wrong but I think he would say something like … he doesn’t believe that any human has (at least up to this point) been able to know absolute truth and that he believes there is a lot more of absolute truth to be known and that he doesn’t believe that it is as narrow or “little” as so many try to make it. At least that is my impression of what he says and writes. BTW – I have met Brian several times in casual settings and he is one of the gentlest, kindest, humblest, most generous and thoughtful people I have ever known.
BTW Glenn – you said “Maybe he doesn’t use the term “heretic” but I am willing to bet that people like me really irritate people like him.” – to be honest with you I don’t think he would be irritated with you and if he was no one would ever know it – he has the patience and demeanor of a gentle saint.
Liz,
Thank you for sharing this. I was thinking of saying something similar about Brian, but since I have only read a few of Brian’s books, and never met him, I didn’t know for sure where he stood on absolute truth, or some of the other questions Glenn brought up. Thank you!
Where did you meet Brian?
Hi Liz,
I don’t know Brian McLaren so I want to be careful to not put words in his mouth. I suppose that I should have made it clear that it has been my observation that this (our views on what is truth) is often the root cause of such radically different understandings of scripture (I can tell that Brian and myself approach scripture very differently).
I am one of those technical people that struggles with reading anything other than formulas so I am certain that Brian can read, and assimilate, information faster than I can.
Q: What is the definition of a scientist?
A: Someone who was traumatized in 3rd grade English.
That being said I am thinking that the reason for our differences have nothing to do with how much scripture we’ve read but how we read it. My observation has been that there is a reason that is some variation of one of these:
1. There is no absolute truth, everything is relative.
– or –
2. God knows absolute truth but He is infinite and we are finite so he cannot communicate it to us.
– or –
3. God can communicate absolute truth but the prophets/apostles interjected there own beliefs into scripture. This means that we have to be able to separate the scriptural “wheat from the chaff.”
I believe that if any of those are true that we should all just give up and pack it in, truth would be unknowable to us. Rejecting those options makes me take scripture very literally and makes me appear to be very inflexible. Oh well, it is what it is.
Like I said though those are observations and I don’t know what Brian McLaren actually thinks about any of this. In the end Jesus knows the thoughts and intents of our hearts and He is the one that has the final say.
Glenn
Glenn,
There might be another option other than those three.
4. There is absolute truth, and God is able to communicate it to us, but we, being human, have to learn it.
That is my view. The difficulty, of course, is knowing when we’ve learned it. I look back over the past fifteen years of my life, and am amazed at how much my theology has changed. Things I was certain of fifteen years ago, I now view as errors. This leads me to wonder: Which beliefs do I currently hold which are also false, and how can I learn the truth? One of the things I do is read and study Scripture, not to confirm what I already believe, but to allow it to challenge and correct my beliefs and practices.
This view also causes me to hold many of my beliefs lightly….with an open hand. This doesn’t mean I don’t believe them. I do. I am fully convinced and persuaded of them. But I also know that (as has so often happened in the past) a piece of evidence might come along which I have not yet considered, and it will persuade me to change a belief or two. And I am so thankful when that happens, because I would rather change my beliefs than continue believing a lie.
Hi Jeremy,
I believe that we share the same view but it has led us in different directions (at least for now). Truth is unknowable if it depends on fallen sinful people like myself. I do not deny that. Truth is not something that depends on my experiences in life.
I guess the question for me is that if there is truth can I know it? I believe that I can know particular truths (I cannot know truth comprehensively because I am not God). If God has made it possible for me to know truth, and He has, doesn’t He also expect me to act on it? Again the answer is yes. If I don’t act in accordance with truth then I am literally blowing God off. That is never a very good idea.
In the end all I can say is that we all must continue to learn truth and act upon it. I am sure that you remember the parable of the ruler who gave three men money to invest while he was away. Upon his return the first two men were rewarded based on the returns the ruler received from their investments. The third man was punished because he buried the money under a rock because he was afraid of losing it. The third man received no rewards and got a good chewing out if I remember right. The ruler was Christ of course and I believe the treasure the men were entrusted with is truth. Our Lord and Savior is not pleased with us when we do not act on the truth He has provided.
I am getting long winded here which I didn’t want to do. I will give you the last word and good bye for now.
Glenn
Glenn,
I am enjoying this discussion, so there is no need to bow out unless you want to. You are gracious and insightful in your comments. I agree with you and both of us pretty much share the same view.
You say it has led us in different directions. What directions?
Hi Jeremy,
I thought I was beating a dead horse but I can continue if you like. The reason that I say we are going in different directions is that I am willing to bet money that my beliefs are close to what yours were before you entered DTS. You seem to have reevaluated your beliefs since then. Am I wrong about that?
Since I read your blog I probably know more about you than you do about me so here is a little background that I know you will understand. I grew up in a home that listened to R.B. Thieme, Jr. (I think you called us Thiemites(?) once). While I don’t agree with everything he taught I would be lying if I said he didn’t have a dramatic impact on me. I am still a dispensational premillennialist (aka a “rightwing fundamentalist” sigh…) and I still listen to Bible Studies by people like Robert Dean and Arnold Fruchtenbaum.
I take it seriously just as you do. The one thing I won’t do is begin name calling. If I think a discussion will get divisive I will bow out (I didn’t used to do that). Many of our brethren need to find a teacher that understands the true meaning of agape.
Glenn
I think I am still a premillennial dispensationalist. Maybe. Kind of. It is the perspective I am closest to. Let’s put it that way.
Yes, my time in seminary changed some of my views. It wasn’t really anything I learned at seminary though, but some of the “outside of seminary” lessons I learned that changed me the most. I think I have a different way of reading Scripture now, a vastly different ecclesiology, and a few other changes.
One main change is something it sounds like you have gone through also. Prior to seminary, I held my beliefs rigidly, without grace toward those who disagreed, and definitely without agape. Now, I am a little more relaxed about all of that.
Jeremy – I met Brian at the TransForm gathering in D.C. last year and again this year at the Big Tent Christianity conference in Phoenix.
Glenn – I agree more with Jeremy’s suggestion (“There is absolute truth, and God is able to communicate it to us, but we, being human, have to learn it.”) than the three you suggested but even if any of the four are true I don’t think it would be a reason to give up, pack it in or assume that truth is unknowable. I believe that even very tiny slivers of truth are of the utmost value if we seek for pure reasons and I believe that truth can be found in many places. I don’t believe that truth is found and/or given only in a factual record. I am not so concerned whether scripture is completely factually true or if the authors included their own perspectives/understandings (I can’t imagine that they could do otherwise) – I don’t believe those things take away from the truth I will find there. I believe that the kind of truth we are talking about very often transcends facts. So yes, I do think we read scripture differently and we expect different things from scripture. I expect scripture to reveal and inspire – to describe but not prescribe.
Liz, I am moving more and more toward the descriptive view of Scripture rather than prescriptive. I’m not sure when the line will eventually get drawn, but we’ll see. Is there anything in Scripture that would say is prescriptive for all people in all time?