From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Tue Apr 29 2003 - 13:51:29 EDT
Jason-
Re: "Faith in God is what saves, yet if you place your faith in the wrong deity, your faith is worthless."
I think most of us hold that God is "what saves".
It seems to me that in some sense, our faith might always be flawed...insufficient..."worthless"(?).
I know of no "FAITH-ON" switch that sets fully locked and loaded faith into permanent rightly-directed motion. Instead, faith per se seems somehow a bit frail, ...based on an incomplete and imperfect understanding of God and his ways and purposes, ...based on imperfect commitment, ...continuously varying in the specifics of its experience, ...and always subject to questioning and revision in its details as we interact with people whose experience differs from our own and study and learn and change.
This distinction about "what saves" is not a quibble in my view. It forces a relaxation of our grip on how God might elect to extend his redemption to mankind. Moreover, it drives home how utterly and completely dependent we are on God's grace and mercy alone. In that situation, it is perhaps not our place to assert that if we get God's name wrong(?), ...or have an imperfect understanding of his nature and intent, ...or of his actions toward us, ...or of how we should respond to him, that he will not respond to us in our imperfect reach for him and what he wants in and of us. I stake my hope ultimately in his love and mercy and grace alone, for these descriptions all fit me perfectly.
Jim Armstrong
igevolution@earthlink.net wrote:
>Burgy wrote, in part:
>
>Perforce, then, you must also have the view that unless a person somehow acquires "accurate knowledge," they will not attain heaven. Which means myriads of human beings, pre-33 AD as well as in more modern times, are so condemned. I understand that view; I have difficulty understanding how anyone can hold it and still hold to a loving and just god. One or the other concept has to be rejected, to be consistent and coherent. IMHO.
>
>_____________
>
> There are two responses to this, but first, I'd like to press you a bit on your view of inerrancy vis-a-vis my definitions yesterday. Where do you stand, specifically, on that issue? If we are far enough removed from each other on that ground, then further discussion in this question will not be fruitful, as our starting positions will be do divergent at the outset.
>
> First, one must remember that it is faith in Christ that saves, but the faith must be anchored in the right savior. Those who lived and died before Christ were not immediately damned. They could rely on God, through faith, to clense them of their sin. See Romans 4:1-5:
> "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not toward God. For what saith the scripture? 'And abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.' Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But
>to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly,his faith is reckoned for righteousness."
> Faith in God is what saves, yet if you place your faith in the wrong deity, your faith is worthless. Jehovah's witnesses and mormons place their faith in the work of Christ, yet their Christ is not my Christ. Their inaccurate knowledge of Christ makes their faith worthless. I can call my dog Jesus Christ, place all my faith in him, and yet be damned. Knowledge is necessary to validate one's faith.
> Also notice that, according to the above passage, we can have works all day long and yet not attain to righteousness in the eyes of God. You can love others, prioritize their needs, and even sacrifice yourself out of love for others, but lacking a true faith in the true Christ, your sacrifice will not bring you salvation. Knowledge is critical to establish the object in which you place your faith, which saves.
>
> A second retort to your coment would be to illustrate the difference between justice and mercy. An illustration will show the point: Suppose a man committs a murder and is convicted by the courts and sentenced to death by lethal injection. That is justice. If, however, on the eve of his death, he receives a pardon from the governor and is set free, that is mercy. If his cell mate, who is also sentenced to death, does not receive a pardon and is executed, the governor does not cease to be just, he ceases to be merciful. Yet he has shown mercy to one man, just not to all. This is also consistent with the scriptural description of God. God says, "I will have wrath for whom I will have wrath and I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy." This gets into the mystery of election, which I do not claim to completely understand, but it is clear from scripture that God does determine that some shall be saved and some shall perish.
> This must also all be seen in the light of the irrefutible goodness of God. Despite the fact that we cannot understand sometimes the goodness of His action, we are told that His action is always good. He cannot be otherwise. So, when he calls on Israel to utterly destroy a people, down to the women and children, not leaving one stone upon another, we cringe, but we
>mustn't dare judge God. God is perfectly loving and perfectly good. In ways we cannot understand, these actions are both.
>
>Jason
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 29 2003 - 13:51:59 EDT