After you've got your converts you make them ... (2)

Twice as fit for hell! 
As you are yourselves!  

Yesterday we had a simple look at salvation and the question of universalism (meaning, where everyone gets in to heaven - i.e. eternity in the presence of God - and the way some are teaching this as if it were part of what the C of E believes (and believe me, it doesn't) portraying it as if it was any way anything but wrong.

But the problem is that these folk with their erroneous teaching don't stop with yesterday's teaching but they continue by adding in a 'second chance' whereby people can effectively, after death, rethink their decision not to have acknowledged or accepted reconciliation with God through the salvific act (great word that, isn't it?) of Jesus, the Christ, on the Cross.

Even though they have denied Jesus, the Christ, and lived their lives for themselves rather than in pursuit of doing what is right and pleasing to God (as described in the Bible, in case you wondered where to find these requisite things) and serve those around them - those who teach this bring into being a God who is so desperate to populate heaven (meaning  that place where eternity with God is a reality) that He (some would rather another word was used here too, sorry about that) will resort to something extra-Jesus to make it happen.

I do quite honestly struggle here because Hebrews 9.27 tells me that it is all set up such that we live (Once) and then die (once) and then are judged (once). To deliver what these folk deliver is to teach something that is not orthodox theology (well not as I understand it) and, should it be right, surely removes any need for us to engage in evangelism, after all - everyone was already getting in with their teaching and now the cheery that there's even a second chance for those who weren't. A real struggle here because if everyone was getting in, why does the salvation/heaven thing need a belt added to those braces already described?

Let's turn to the Old Testament and Daniel 12, which is a real rocker, telling us:

"But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.'

Now, even those Old Testament folk knew that there was going to be a resurrection and that some would go through the turnstile on the left and the others to the right. BUT, these 'teachers', when challenged, tell me that this is not the sort of God they want to portray and how hard and harsh people find such teaching and so they merely preach and teach what they think is a more acceptable and gentle and generous God.

'Goodness gracious me,' I cry, 'Jesus comes to earth, puts off being God, and dies for me - can there be anything more generous than that?'

But, when challenged, these folk tell me of parents who have died without perhaps having made the decision to accept the reconciliation with God that comes through the cross of Christ (yeah, I've got them too) and how preaching what they do is attractive to those outside the Church (so why aren't their churches full and overflowing?) and how the 'second chance' demonstrates a loving and forgiving God who ignores how people have lived and looks the other way at the choices they have made and sees Jesus having one last go at fulfilling His mission by turning up and offering eternity as a post-mortem gift (so Jesus and the cross are not all-sufficient after all then?)

By adopting this stance I am being told that I need more than Jesus and that He was never enough - isn't this heretical?

But these people are resolute and sure in their heresies (but aren;t they always?) - they brings them comfort to have created a God who will not only fill their own desires but they make matters worse by teaching those around them that life can be lived as you wish to live and that you can relax in the comfort of the hope that everyone gets in at the very end (one who holds these views struggled a little when I asked about the Paris bombers - but of course Romans 8 does tell us that nothing separates us from God's love, definitely something to be discussing soon I think). 

So here we are, a couple of facets from the gem that is the theology and teaching of some who give us Anglicans a bad name. The problem is that there are some things you cannot polish and their teaching is surely in the same mould as that.

After you've got your converts you make them ... (1)

Twice as fit for hell!
As you are yourselves!

I often find the word of the Godspell song, 'Alas for you' resonating in my heart and head as I encounter people who teach error wrapped up as orthodoxy.

Is it any wonder that the Church of England is in such a state when you hear some of the tripe that is peddled as right thinking?

Is it any wonder that some friends who live in other denominations think that we (the Church of England) are a bunch of apostate losers?

When I was 'saved' - something I can put a date and time to - I remember the feeling of gratitude that accompanied the thought that Jesus had loved me so much that He became fully man (meaning put of being God and emptied Himself of all the God bits) and took my place as one sentenced to die and died in my place. I remember thinking that if Jesus died to allow me and God to have a relationship and to give me life where death had been the curse: That I would live this regained life as fully as I could.

But now I hear people teaching that everyone gets into heaven because Jesus died for them - and they are. BUT, like all heresy whilst starting from a true statement they then add some deviation from the true course so that those who hear their words end up some distance from the place they should be. Let me explain what and how of this issue in simple terms:

God sends His Son into the world - not to condemn people but to save them.
Nothing hard here. In fact it is surely quite welcome news! (Jn 3.16)

Jesus comes into the world and brings salvation. This restores a fallen creation with a consistent Creator and promises an end to the result of the separateness that 'sin' created between us and God (the result being 'death' by the way).
This is not a popular concept for some because they think that we mustn't use the naughty 'S' word and certainly must not tell people that they're doing  'sinful things' because (and this is what people tell me, I'm not making this up) - this is regarded as a value judgement on their life choices and actions and will not make Church, them or God popular! 

The problem is that what we should be dealing with is 'being right' and leading people into righteousness not popularity!

Now, Jesus has come and reconciled the created with the Creator and removed the result of 'sin' (death) and opened for us a new life (that's why the terms 'saved' and 'born again' have such merit). This is the reality for everyone, Jesus truly died for ALL (which last time I looked means all of whatever population you're thinking of). All you need to do is to accept that Jesus died for you (we call this 'belief") and that's the seal on the deal - it's done and dusted, all you need to do is live within that knowledge.
'But,' people say, 'I don't want to believe in Jesus. But I'll have the eternal life, thank you very much!'

The problem with this is that what we have is a situation much which reminds me of when I was a kid growing up in North London. There was a marketing fad between the soap powder manufacturers which saw customers being offered a free plastic flower (as a gift) if they bought a packet of washing powder. I remember an advert' which boldly proclaimed that there was one of these (naff) tulips or roses for 'everyone'. (the 'naff' is my assessment by the way - the companies offering them referred to them as if they were something of great value)

All you needed to do was take the time and energy to pop down to the corner shop or supermarket and buy a packet and then return back later with the box top to redeem your plastic flower. The flower was there for you (because there was 'one for everyone') but you only got one if you took the time to go and collect it. If you didn't want it, you didn't go back - and that was, as ever, your choice.

This is pretty much the same with salvation. Jesus dies upon the cross and by doing so ensures that reconciliation between us and God is made ours: All you need to do is to take a ticket from Him. But if you don't recognise Jesus (or don't want to) then of course you won't be saying 'Thank You' to Him or be taking a ticket because that's the choice you have made! If you acknowledge that this is the case then you will also, I am sure, acknowledge the fact that even those the gift has been made available to you, you have chosen not to claim it.

You don't even have to make two trips, for you can collect the ticket straight from the source and, being polite, say, 'Thank You,' at the same time. So what's stopping you?

You see, those who teach that EVERYONE is saved are totally correct, they've just forgotten who the source of this salvation and the ticket is. Sad really because once you've met Him and realised you were dead but now have been given back your life, you would I'm sure make a decision to live differently - something we are required to do if we are to maintain a newly restored life. This is what the 'born again' bit refers to - simple stuff, n rocket science or calculus required here. But let me make it even simpler:

Salvation is a free gift, but like being given an expensive sports car for free, salvation costs everything you have to keep it on the road. 

Not willing to pay that price? That's not a problem. After you you makes your choice and you decide who you want to please; God or yourself. Just make sure you know not to moan about how unfair things are when the final whistle blows.

Simple innit?

I'm confused Vic; they seem to think they're Christian

The title of this entry relates to something I've said regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses and the fact that I said I didn't think they were Christian, I received this challenging (and most excellent) comment:

'I'm confused Vic; they seem to think they are?'

Indeed they do, or at least they want others to think that they are, but using the name Jesus in a different context to that which is considered to be orthodox doesn't make you Christian and more than using Man U as a focus for ridicule makes you their supporter. But the 'Christian' claim adds, or at least attempts to add, some integrity and implicit value to a bunch of (albeit nice) people who are not, as I understand it actually Christian.

I used to have a number of friends who talked of the bloke who started the thing off some 150 years hence and was quite impressed by some of their stuff, it all started to go wrong when I read about him flooding 'miracle wheat' what wasn't- in fact it was a bit of a scam and, if I recall correctly, he was found guilty of being just a bit dodgy!

But let's no dwell in ad hominem but look at what they believe - and here it might help if we had a look at the Creed, for this is surely a benchmark document. Here we find that the Witnesses focus entirely on Jehovah (the name sort of gives it away) - just one God (without the other two persons of the Trinity) and I have a recollection somewhere that Jesus and the archangel Michael are viewed as being one and he same. I also recall a quite interesting conversation with a friend over the lack of a cross with Jesus (my witness friend called it a 'torture stake') because they deny it was the way Jesus died (so no crosses either).

Mind you, Christian bits aside, there is a great belief that the first 144,000 faithful Witnesses make it into heaven with Jesus (useful to include Him, helps to confirm the 'Christian' label) and after that, the rest end up on Earth doing the gardening (so that's a religion that would work for my Wife's Dad - Tony's Grandad)!

They tend to use The New World Translation (NWT) because it's a version that they translated from all the original texts; and yet oddly it is apparently at odd with the versions I have on my shelf in a number of places. I have always been most taken up with John 1 which tells me: 'In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word.' But I find the NWT leads me to think that 'the Word was a god' and that's a big difference that supports the non-Trinitarian stance.

There's much that others point to regarding them (the Witnesses) but this (on both sides, the claims and the ridicule), stuff that is subsidiary and resides in the shadows behind the major errors - mind you they do think Jesus returned some hundred years back and this is why it's all gone Pete Tong since (was told that by a lovely bloke peddling magazines in Lichfield just after Easter - good to have no dogcollar some days!).

I guess I'll leave this short explanation as to the reasons I don't see Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian with a 'word from my sponsor' - remaining in John, this time in chapter 14:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
Jesus said to him,  “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip?
Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.  How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves."

I hope this provides some explanation to your question.

Prosperity - Word of Faith - Heretics or Heroes?

I have to admit that I really struggle with so much of the flashy gold, sharply dressed, 'name it - claim it' brigade. Recently, watching a sermon by one (I didn't watch it all because I didn't want to pay the $$$ for the whole thing) I struggled to hear how all I needed to do was 'live in the triumph of Christ' and take the riches He has for me. Health, wealth, 'that job I've dreamt of' - all of them were mine - all I needed to do was claim them in the name of Jesus!

So I turned over to another channel and found a really slick performance going on. 'Let me have a BIG AMEN', they said - strutting up and down. They went on to repeat this little mantra:

'If you believe in your heart and say it with your mouth, it shall come to pass. God is Faithful'

Interestingly, or perhaps not, I know many who deeply believe stuff and proclaim it and it's never happened.

Perhaps God is unable to do what He is supposed (but being God, don't you think He'd know His job?).

Perhaps the people just didn't believe it enough (after all, belief is not the easiest thing to have now, is it?)

Perhaps they didn't say it enough and, like hits that generate money on a blog, there's a certain number of times that it needs to be said before you get it!

But fortunately the large gentleman in the shiny suit answered my question (perhaps God told Him I was wondering about it):

'And some of you do not receive because of your sin!'

Bazinga! There it is, the small print that says you aren't going to get it. That's it then - game over man, I know I'm a sinner and even though I've confessed it, repented of it and seek to sin less, it seems I'm not going to get what I want because of it. *

And because God was talking to him he heard what I have just written and continued:

'But you say to me, 'I've confessed my sins, why don't I receive?' and I have to tell you that what's getting in the way is your unconfessed sins, those sins you don't even know are there. They are stopping you from getting that job, From getting that house, From being healed.'

'Oh, no,' think I, 'There goes the farm! After all I have confessed, repented and work at living a right life (I haven't managed to rest in my redemption and celebrate Grace just celebrate yet), I'm doomed!'

And the bloke on the TV does it again:

'But you can give God your unconfessed sin and open the doors to the riches God wants to give you . . . let's pray ."

So he prays and they sing a song and I wonder whether the way forward is the next sermon in the series when, Hallelujah, I find the answer is already available and mine, all In need to do is send a donation and in return I will receive 'free of charge' the book:

 'How to confess stuff you never knew was there so you can get all the stuff you really deserve because after all that was the reason Jesus died - to make you healthy, wealthy and ....'

No, it's not the name of the real book (for that would tell you who this snake oil salesman was) and the final word of the title most certainly wasn't 'wise' either. Perhaps it should be, 'Look how rich He has made me!'

Now, can someone explain how on earth there is any integrity (worldly or Christian) in what I saw on my TV and how I can have any confidence in the proof texting, they hype and the misquotes?

As a pastor my desire is to see people in union with God, living for God because of the cross of Jesus, the Christ, and enabled by the Holy Spirit. I don't want to see people bound by law and weighed down by restrictions and demands upon them they can't keep. I know God provides and heals and blesses, but that, like Grace is a gift, not a right and I cannot comprehend a God who is a cross between Santa, the easter Bunny and the Genie from the bottle.

God meets our needs - and sometimes fulfils our wants too. In return he expects us to mirror Him and do the same in the world we find ourselves for Jesus came to bring peace to the earth - and He did - but we need to take it and share it because he opened the depot and filled it high, but unless we take it out and distribute it and help others to join the distribution firm, this world will live broken and out of control.

Now you don't need to send me money for that (but if you do :-)  )

I'll have to give it away!

Pax

*This would explain how, even though the Arsenal have been in the top spot of the English Premier League for longer than any club this season, they've fallen to fourth place - it's not Arsene Wenger's fault - it is my sin what took them there before it was accomplished!

Credo - Christianity's Baseline

One of the biggest problems we mere mortals have to deal with is that of people trying so hard to cover all the bases when a conflict occurs to the extent that the solution becomes so unwieldy as to be almost useless. As we (and most of the Church) celebrated Athanasius yesterday it was only a matter of time before someone asked me whether we'd do the 'Athanasian Creed'; It was was I expected and I was not to be disappointed! Fo me, the Athanasian Creed ticks all the boxes and make so many things clear that it is a splendidly difficult piece of work.

The whole point of the Creed is that it, in its simplest form, provided for us a baseline or minima for possession of the label 'Christian'. The 'I believes', for that is, of course what the word 'credo' means, provide us with a tick list that, once all the ticks are in place, give others a confidence regarding our orthodoxy (right thinking).

From where I recline we have three Creeds before us:

The Apostle's - Used as a basic statement of Christian beliefs for those being baptised. Date somewhere around the early 200 AD mark (210 -225 if memory serves me right). A simple, first person profession of faith (I believe - so baptise me!).

The Nicene - came out of what was to be the very first ecumenical council held in Nicea in 325 AD which was convened to address various heresies and errors and bring about unity (hence the third person - 'We believe' and so there is unity) in thought, practice and theology; providing a baseline for what defined a Christian. It is simple and this is where its beauty lies.

The Athanasian - Although after Athanasius, he had nothing to do with this creed! The association more than likely comes about because he was active involved in addressing all things heretical and, unlike the other two creeds, this one is not widely accepted (finding no favour with the Eastern Orthodox geezers). Not a basic statement of belief but a remedy for those with struggles regarding the Trinity, the Incarnation and the 'two natures' (man and divine) debate,

Discounting completely the Athanasian from the discussion, we can create from the creeds a basic checklist (old pilot habit - sorry) to ensure that, in terms of Christian faith, all is well. (something I'm going off to do a bit later) but for now, have a go at comparing them for yourself:

Universalism - Where I am

Regarding my comment in the last post about how, "You pays your money and makes your choice – don’t say no one told you!" I received the response, "Doesn't sound like very good news to me...!"

The person went on to explain how they'd been led to universalism and that really nicely moves me on from annihilation rather nicely. Those who adhere to universalist views tell me that I have a high Christology and that my views limit God. So what are my views:

God made man to have a relationship with him, walking and conversing with him in the garden in the cool of the day (Gen 3) but man (generic) sinned by disobeying God and thus came separation from God, expulsion from the garden and all the other stuff.

Disobedience brought separation, a finitude to life and so sin (missing the target) became our lot and it marked us out, and led us into despair, from thence onwards. So God engaged in floods, covenants, prophets, miraculous signs (including deliverances) and still man was separate. Whatever humanity did, it never lasted and always fell short of the target (sin again).

So God realising that without the shedding of blood there could be no forgiveness decided to pay the price for sin Himself, with Himself! Enter God incarnate, Jesus (the Christ) who taking upon Himself our sin, personally and individually identifiably, dies on the cross for us so that the debt (tetelestai) is cancelled - paid upon the nail!

Those who accept that Jesus paid this price for them may come and take from His hands the certificate of divorce between us and sin, for we are no longer bound and no longer in relationship. The tie has been broken and we live in that freedom with the father as author, the Son ans the means and the Spirit as enabler. Simples isn't it?

And best of all, this offer is open to all, for in dying Christ secured that freedom for all (see I am a universalist), we just need to recognise, accept and gratefully take the ticket from His hands.

The first response to my views was that the person I was talking to, "Wouldn't want to have a god like that, I don't imagine my god doesn't do that!"

Well, to be honest I have to say that I thought then, and still do, that 'their god' was a god of their own making. They decide that they want a faith where everyone gets into heaven (what's the point of spending eternity with someone you didn't want to spend a temporal life with? Now that's illogical!).

"It doesn't matter what you've believed, what you've done or how you live, God opens the door to all!"

In that case I don't need to engage in evangelism, after all I'm not plundering hell to populate heaven, I'm just moving the markers around a bit. I don't need to live as Christ would have us live, because there's no goats at the end (said he sheepishly!) and eternal punishment was just a typo! Mind you the people I was dialoguing with claim that the Bible was subject to the editor's pen, additions and changes to make religious and political views and never contained half of what it now does and has lost all the bits we'd disagree with!!!

"You have far too high a Christology. Jesus isn't that powerful and doesn't have the ability to pick and choose - everyone ends up in heaven regardless!"

Funny that but my Bible tells me, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world mto condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

So that's the position I occupy on this (in a nutshell)

Pax