I thought Pagitt did an excellent job trying to correct the faulty questions Todd Friel was throwing at him. I thought Friel's questions demonstrated a focus on heaven after death as opposed to the Kingdom of God here and now or even better, on the final state of New Heaven, New Earth, and New Jerusalem. I think too many Christians are incorrectly focussed on the the in between of heaven after death. Friel also seemed very concerned with assessing someone's state as opposed to their journey, the fruit of their life, etc.. And so it went and Pagitt rightly resisted.
The problem I ultimately had with Pagitt was that when he finally got the question framed properly, that is, "will the eternal soul of a Muslim (meaning non-believer in the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross, etc.) be a partaker in this New Heaven, New Earth, and New Jerusalem?" he failed to respond "no." With all his excellent thinking of getting this set-up properly, I was expecting something better. I don't see his answer as squaring with Scripture.
Technorati Tags: Emerging Church
1 comment:
Rick,
I have to listen to the show before I comment on Doug's answer...
What I do know from my reading others though is possibly two things.
1. That if someone says that someone must know the Name of Jesus to be saved, I agree, unless we are in Israel and He is called Y'shua...
What I mean is that Jesus' name is not the "literal" name... as it is a derivative of Joshua... To get legalistic on this we become like the JW's who insist that Jehovah is god's real name... Now it is by Jesus we are all saved... and yes, it is His Name we are saved...but as far as variants of the Name, I am sure Jesus will answer to those, as we must not just think Jesus, which is the Greek, is THE NAME... Now I know that might be confusing so let me give an example.
My given name is Carlos which sometimes Chuck, which is sometimes Charles and so on... I have had people call me all of those and have answered to all of those, as the person I am, is the same... (Forget that I am also called "iggy" as I am not sure how to fit that in the example) = )
2. There is an understanding from The Chronicles of Narnia, where a Prince stands before Aslan and Aslan tells him that though he served Tash, all the good he did was really rendered unto Aslan for Tash was so evil nothing done out of a noble heart could be even comprehended... so though the Prince served Tash he really served Aslan and could enter into the kingdom (or whatever as it has been a while since I read the story)
Now, this seems to be carried on by some as the idea that some in other religions may not know Jesus, but serve God out of a pure heart and God will not leave that unnoticed.
Frankly, I see that this is a misunderstanding of the intent of CS Lewis who stated he was writing fiction with theology, not theology in a fictional form... so there is a big difference.
Now, I can see in the "inclusive" model that misses that there is a difference between the Cross (taking away the sins of the world as it is more than "atonement") and the resurrection.
I think that some miss this distinction and then assume that all are forgiven is the same as all are saved... unless you opt out.
That is the danger of "opt out" theology as it mistakenly misses that we need the relational aspect...so we have an "inclusive/exclusive" model of all men are forgiven, yet not all are saved... we must believe on Jesus and the Cross, and receive Jesus and the resurrection... and in that be saved.
There is more as it concerns the way Calvin and Luther could not reconcile "all men forgiven" yet "only many save" as "atonement and receiving the Life of Christ were one in the same to them... while if you read the scripture it makes distinction between the Cross and the Resurrection... as in Romans 5:10 "For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!"
We are reconciled by Jesus' death but saved by His Life... one must have both to be truly saved.
Now, if Doug is stating that one can serve Allah and live a “good” life then I think he is missing that no one is good enough… and even if the Muslim lived an almost perfect Muslim life, he still, though forgiven, will only be a forgiven dead man… for a dead man needs only one thing and that is Life.
So, I would disagree with Doug on this… though I think at times Doug just plain blows it, as we do not speak the language of the modernist, as I understand Doug does a great job at exposing.
Now, does that mean Doug is a heretic and will burn, baby burn…Not if we really understand grace by faith… because if it all depends on Doug’s perfect understanding of all doctrine, then it would be works… so I would say from what I understand he teaches aberrant on this topic, but may most likely teach rightly on most others.
Be blessed,
iggy
Post a Comment