Sometimes one has to wonder whether or not theo-blogging is really worth all the time (I think it is, simply because it’s a great outlet, and more importantly I have met many many great Christian people)? I write this post as a response to some interaction I just had at another blog (a brief exchange) wherein my interlocuter ends his exchange with me like this:
Bobby,
I assure you I do not wish to take God’s position in your life. However, if you are offering…repent, learn some social skills, and accept the resurrected Christ as your Lord and Savior. Guys that start it always have a problem with finishing it.
Great. So I end up needing to accept Jesus into my life, because I disagree with this guy; and I don’t think, really, that he is able to keep up with the exchange, so he ends up frustrated, telling me he doesn’t want to be God, but that I need Jesus in my heart.
This whole exchange only demonstrates how important it is to stay idea-centric in the sphere; at least when we are discussing things theological (although I like to be personal). It’s a fine balance, I certainly didn’t achieve it over at this other blog; I’ll just need to be careful. But I think if we’re going to “argue” theology, then we need to make sure we are arguing theology and not personality. That we need to argue ideas, and not emotions (not that we can’t be passionate, just that our passion needs to be driven by love of Christ, which includes being coherent [at least attempting] and logical [although not rationalist]).
Just thinking out-loud here :-).
I agree that it is essential to be able to separate disagreement concerning a doctrinal belief (however skewed) from the person who holds to it.
I’ve also noted that when certain doctrines seriously cloud the simple truth of the Gospel, it may be a possibility that the person who holds to that belief isn’t really a new creature in Christ. In that case, the rough personality is a direct result of being “dead”, rather than that the person is a work in progress. Debating the “finer points” of theology should then give way to an offering of Jesus’ message of salvation, IMO.
Have you ever noticed that the atheist’s jab when they run out of things to say is typically “You’re just an intolerant hater”.
And many professing Christians seem to like to jump to “Well, you are just deceived and may not even be saved…”?
It’s kind of difficult to answer either of those judgments because it usually indicates that the other guy has pretty much made up his mind about you and is no longer interested in listening to your perspective.
Heather,
I don’t think it’s anyone’s place, except God’s, to judge, esp electronically, if someone is “saved” or not.
Yes, I’ve dealt with many atheists like you mention; but then again, I’ve interacted with many who are “ready to go for it.”
But in the end I think you’re right, if folks have already quit listenting before the debate ever gets started then its throwing the pearl before swine, eh.
“I donβt think itβs anyoneβs place, except Godβs, to judge, esp electronically, if someone is βsavedβ or not.”
I’m with you on that.
Jesus and Paul both seem to indicate that it is appropriate to be aware of how well other professing believers are behaving and whether they are teachable/correctable.
The purpose, of course, is not to give us leverage over them or allow for us to judge their souls–but rather to help identify those who may still need to hear the truth. Or, in some cases, to identify those who are completely closed to the truth and who will, if we continue to associate closely, only create problems for those who are of God’s family.
There are a lot of people with a lot of weird understandings, these days. I’m sure I don’t have all the details correct… But, really, we’ve had 2000 years to mess things up and people seem to be expert at messing things up. π
It is an honorable thing to desire to sort through the mess so that we might better see Christ for who He is.
Heather,
I don’t think it’s anyone’s place to judge if someone is ultimately saved or not. Behavior is never used in that way in scripture. It is the Federal Calvinist framework that “uses” behavior in scripture that way. Jesus Himself said that behavior is not it (cf. Pharisees Mt 23), it’s a matter of the heart.
We are certainly to hold professing Christians accountable, even “treat” them as unbelievers (Mt 18); but this is not say that they aren’t “saved.”
Right. I agree with you on that point concerning who’s place it is to judge. You have no idea how clear God has made it to me that I have no business going around assuming that someone is unsaved just because I think they did the wrong thing. Trust me. I’m right on board with that.
I did not mean to suggest that it is okay for one person to determine the condition of another person’s heart. I certainly am not qualified to be able to pinpoint “real” Christians simply by looking at externals.
My point was that how (or if) I need to interact with another person *may* be determined by their outward behavior.
I was thinking along the lines of Matthew 7 rather than 18. Jesus said of false prophets that they can be known by their fruits. That says nothing of anyone making a judgment over another person’s heart–but rather gives direction on whether it is wise to listen to and keep close company with such people.
Personally, I strongly disagree with the apparently common view that Matthew 18 is about “how to kick someone out of church” and I don’t think Jesus gives us license there to say “you aren’t saved”. It bothers me tremendously that this harsh, unforgiving stance is so often taken and Craig and I have both seen some of the abuse and pain caused among church groups that subscribe to the “kick ’em out” view.
The point of “church discipline” is, ultimately, restoration to fellowship–as Paul exercised in 1 Corinthians.
There is always a possibility that a person who firmly rejects godly counsel (over matters of actual sin) isn’t saved, and it is not wrong to be aware of that possibility. It has nothing to do with judging another’s soul but rather understanding that there *may* still be a deep need for Christ that goes beyond a simple doctrinal disagreement. It is precisely because we cannot see a person’s heart that it is important to recognize that.
There is no reason to jump from the thought that a person might not actually know Jesus to saying “I have determined that this person is not a believer” or entertain smug feelings of superiority or spread potentially harmful rumors about whether they are actually saved. I am still to leave judgment up to God, and I am still instructed by Him to behave in a loving, respectful manner regardless of what the other guy is up to.
Quite frankly, I have enough problems of my own. I don’t need to borrow anyone else’s.
I’m not communicating well lately. I guess I’ll just stop before I clarify myself into an invitation to leave.
π
.
Heather,
Thanks, I think you’re quite clear here; and I think we’re on the same page too π .