A Christian Pluralistic Theology

[David Graham]

My last paper I had to do for my Master's degree was on developing a Christian theology of religious pluralism.

I took the view that there were some things that were essential elements within Christian theology that were non-negotiatable, but that on many other issues it really didn't matter what we believed and so could dialogue with and possibly even embrace the ideas and practices of others outside of the Christian faith.

The essential elements for me were as follows:
1. The central place of Christ as the revelation of God and Saviour of the world. Here I tended to be inclusivist, emphasising the grace and mercy of God.

2. The Triune God

3. The Authority of the Scriptures

4. The place of the sacraments within the worship and ministry of the church

5. The essential nature of faith in the life of the believer

The non-essential beliefs included things such as eschatology (most of which is speculative anyway) , ecclesiology and missiology.

So, what would you include or exclude from your theology of religious pluralism? Are you an exclusivist, and inclusivist or a pluralist and why?

[Steven Martinez]

Personally, I think there is a huge jump between number 3 and number 4. I think it is essential to discuss the identity and role of the Church as an essential aspect of the Christian faith.

[George Wallace]

Personally, I think there is a huge jump between number 3 and number 4. I think it is essential to discuss the identity and role of the Church as an essential aspect of the Christian faith.

David,
Will you define, specifically what you mean by "pluralism" or "pluralistic theology". Ensuring that we are addressing the same thing, would be a good start.


Thanks
George

[Dennis Bratcher]

My last paper I had to do for my Master's degree was on developing a Christian theology of religious pluralism.

I took the view that there were some things that were essential elements within Christian theology that were non-negotiatable, but that on many other issues it really didn't matter what we believed and so could dialogue with and possibly even embrace the ideas and practices of others outside of the Christian faith.

The essential elements for me were as follows:
1. The central place of Christ as the revelation of God and Saviour of the world. Here I tended to be inclusivist, emphasising the grace and mercy of God.

2. The Triune God

3. The Authority of the Scriptures

4. The place of the sacraments within the worship and ministry of the church

5. The essential nature of faith in the life of the believer.

The non-essential beliefs included things such as eschatology (most of which is speculative anyway) , ecclesiology and missiology.

So, what would you include or exclude from your theology of religious pluralism? Are you an exclusivist, and inclusivist or a pluralist and why?

I agree that there are basic beliefs that are essential to Christianity. It is not that they are exclusivist, in the sense that they become entrance requirements for relationship with God. That is always a matter of God’s grace. But in describing the nature of the Christian Faith, there are some things that help define what “Christianity” is. I’d go with these seven (of course there are qualifications and commentary to all of these):

1) There is One God - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

2) The Old and New Testament Scriptures contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living.

3) Human beings are born with a tendency to self-centeredness that will always lead to sin.

4) Human beings who do not respond to God and reorient their lives to God and others, are finally and eternally separated from God.

5) Reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ is available to every human being; whoever responds to God’s grace is accepted into relationship with God and continually transformed by that grace.

6) God through the Holy Spirit brings to believers peace and assurance of our relationship with God.

7) God will not forever leave this world the way it is but will come to establish peace and require final accountability from humanity.

For Wesleyans, I would add an eighth (for many Christians, it is part of #5):

8.) Those in relationship with God can be transformed by his grace and filled with God’s presence so that “love excludes sin.”

Having said all of that, let me again stress that these are “after-the-fact” descriptions, not entrance requirements to salvation. I suspect that is far more liberal with God than we can imagine, since it is based in love not in stipulations (which requires more qualifications and commentary).

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Hans Deventer]

David,
Will you define, specifically what you mean by "pluralism" or "pluralistic theology". Ensuring that we are addressing the same thing, would be a good start.

George

Well, well, I readily admit this is unexpected but it goes to show one can never say never. You're actually intending to let go of your fixation on the past and explore the future? That is wonderful news indeed. It's nothing short of a full blown conversion!

In case you wonder what I am talking about:
http://www.naznet.com/community/show...ll=1#post74630

We might yet start to get along after all.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I wonder if this post on Experimental Theology might be helpful in the beginning of a post-traditional discussion on a theology of pluralism.

[Dale Cozby]

I agree that there are basic beliefs that are essential to Christianity. It is not that they are exclusivist, in the sense that they become entrance requirements for relationship with God. That is always a matter of God’s grace. But in describing the nature of the Christian Faith, there are some things that help define what “Christianity” is. I’d go with these seven (of course there are qualifications and commentary to all of these):

1) There is One God - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

2) The Old and New Testament Scriptures contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living.

3) Human beings are born with a tendency to self-centeredness that will always lead to sin.

4) Human beings who do not respond to God and reorient their lives to God and others, are finally and eternally separated from God.

5) Reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ is available to every human being; whoever responds to God’s grace is accepted into relationship with God and continually transformed by that grace.

6) God through the Holy Spirit brings to believers peace and assurance of our relationship with God.

7) God will not forever leave this world the way it is but will come to establish peace and require final accountability from humanity.

For Wesleyans, I would add an eighth (for many Christians, it is part of #5):

8.) Those in relationship with God can be transformed by his grace and filled with God’s presence so that “love excludes sin.”

Having said all of that, let me again stress that these are “after-the-fact” descriptions, not entrance requirements to salvation. I suspect that is far more liberal with God than we can imagine, since it is based in love not in stipulations (which requires more qualifications and commentary).

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

I think this is a good summary.
Here is my take on it in order.
1. God is revealed to man in the Trinity
2. God gives us a trustworthy testament of His will and love for us, found in the OT and NT.
3. Creation is fallen into corruption by mankind’s sinfulness and we are corrupt at birth and inclined to evil
4. We have freewill and thus there is the possibility to be separated from God eternally or to repent
5. God is reconciling His creation through the redemptive work of grace in Jesus, the Christ
6. God’s Holy Spirit gives us assurance of this redemption and our relationship in peace by faith
7. God’s Spirit transforms those who walk by faith into the image of the Christ, Jesus the perfect man.
8. There will be a final accounting of faith for all of us, judged and measured by God himself. Some resurrected to eternal life and others to damnation.

[Hans Deventer]

I think this is a good summary.
Here is my take on it in order.
1. God is revealed to man in the Trinity
2. God gives us a trustworthy testament of His will and love for us, found in the OT and NT.
3. Creation is fallen into corruption by mankind’s sinfulness and we are corrupt at birth and inclined to evil
4. We have freewill and thus there is the possibility to be separated from God eternally or to repent
5. God is reconciling His creation through the redemptive work of grace in Jesus, the Christ
6. God’s Holy Spirit gives us assurance of this redemption and our relationship in peace by faith
7. God’s Spirit transforms those who walk by faith into the image of the Christ, Jesus the perfect man.
8. There will be a final accounting of faith for all of us, judged and measured by God himself. Some resurrected to eternal life and others to damnation.

Sounds good, but I would change #4 if #3 is true: "Through the grace of God, we are enabled to make a choice: to be separated from God eternally or to repent"

[Hans Deventer]

I wonder if this post on Experimental Theology might be helpful in the beginning of a post-traditional discussion on a theology of pluralism.

It should, considering the forum we are on.

[George Wallace]

Well, well, I readily admit this is unexpected but it goes to show one can never say never. You're actually intending to let go of your fixation on the past and explore the future? That is wonderful news indeed. It's nothing short of a full blown conversion!

In case you wonder what I am talking about:
http://www.naznet.com/community/show...ll=1#post74630

We might yet start to get along after all.

Sorry, didn't realize this was a "Post-Trad" post. Picked it up, by using the "New Posts" or "Today's Post" feature and did not realize which forum it was in. I believe my interaction in this forum will be limited, very limited. Mostly, only asking questions, in order to understand what is being discussed. My level of commentary will be most likely contained to phrases such as "thank you" and "I see" or "I appreciate your response." I've read the rules, agree with them, plan on complying fully and am glad the forum was started.

The existence of this forum should allow those of us with a traditional mindset, worldview, or theology the ability to comment freely in The General Theology forum, without having to worry about being stalked, harassed for our traditional beliefs, or be berated for our traditional beliefs in that forum, Right? We should be able to express things like, well, I don't know say... Our belief that Holy Communion, is for baptized, believers in Christ, you know like the bulk of the Church has thought in all of its expressions for 1900 years, you know and stuff like that.

That is really why I appreciate this "Post-Trad" forum so much it enables freedom of thought and expression within a certain context, thus in turn allowing freedom of thought and expression in another... streamlining communication and reducing friction between those with differing thought processes and worldviews.

George

[Hans Deventer]

The existence of this forum should allow those of us with a traditional mindset, worldview, or theology the ability to comment freely in The General Theology forum, without having to worry about being stalked, harassed for our traditional beliefs, or be berated for our traditional beliefs in that forum, Right?

Sure, no problem, George. The very reason why the two forums exist.

[Steven Martinez]

The existence of this forum should allow those of us with a traditional mindset, worldview, or theology the ability to comment freely in The General Theology forum, without having to worry about being stalked, harassed for our traditional beliefs, or be berated for our traditional beliefs in that forum, Right? We should be able to express things like, well, I don't know say... Our belief that Holy Communion, is for baptized, believers in Christ, you know like the bulk of the Church has thought in all of its expressions for 1900 years, you know and stuff like that.
George

Just remember your own words to Ben... just because something has been done for a long time does not make it right, orthodox or biblical.

[Eric Frey]

4. The place of the sacraments within the worship and ministry of the church

This will please Hans greatly (lol!), but I would have a problem with sacraments being labelled essential. I have about as high a view of the sacraments as anyone on here, and I would certainly say that sacraments ought to be the normative, ordinary means of grace, but I just can't include them as essentials.

[Benjamin Burch]

This will please Hans greatly (lol!), but I would have a problem with sacraments being labelled essential. I have about as high a view of the sacraments as anyone on here, and I would certainly say that sacraments ought to be the normative, ordinary means of grace, but I just can't include them as essentials.

To Christianity? I would put them above the Scriptures, as more essential to Christianity. People in countries where they cannot get Bibles, or it's hard to translate them, still have water, and can still partake of bread and wine.

In fact, I have a very hard time recognizing the Salvation Army as "Christian" in this respect. How does a Christian neglect the Sacraments? More importantly, how does one who claims to be a part of the Body of Christ refuse to partake of Christ's Body and Blood which makes us the Body through union with it? I just don't think they can be.

But starting with God's freedom, and therefore freedom to save those who are not Christians, is where I begin a pluralistic theology. In fact, the essential nature of the Sacraments frees me up to do this. For me, it is all about being Christian - being the Church as Stew said - first and foremost. It's a matter of identity.

Salvation in eternal terms is a separate question, one of which we can be assured of one thing: those who are a part of Christ's Body will share in the age to come with Christ.

[Dale Cozby]

Sounds good, but I would change #4 if #3 is true: "Through the grace of God, we are enabled to make a choice: to be separated from God eternally or to repent"

Yeah I thought about the wording on it after I posted it. I was trying to not be too wordy.
I sort of left out the assumed prevenient grace part since it is common to all of us in a pluralistic sense.

[Dale Cozby]

That is really why I appreciate this "Post-Trad" forum so much it enables freedom of thought and expression within a certain context, thus in turn allowing freedom of thought and expression in another... streamlining communication and reducing friction between those with differing thought processes and worldviews.

George

Sounds good George. I agree that by seperating post-trad from traditional it allows for all sorts of conjecture, opinions and "brain storming" thoughts in here...aka "neo-heresy" and for those who post non-heretical thoughts to not be harried in the other forum by such discussions. Likewise in traditional we can chat away about traditonal theological topics from previosly established viewpoints, without them being ridiculed too much.

Sort of like home field rules of play in stick ball.

[George Wallace]

Just remember your own words to Ben... just because something has been done for a long time does not make it right, orthodox or biblical.

Truer words were never spoken! But, please do note that I used the qualifying clause "in all of its expressions for 1900 years." Normally, when Ben and I go round about such things, the "things" usually have a significant history of dispute, often at least 400-500 and again often deal with Pre vs. Post Reformation thought.

In the case of my example we have significant unanimity, the RCC practices closed or close Communion for baptized believers; Closed for the EO and virtually all Protestants either use being believers, or baptized believers as a prerequisite for entry to the Table. As for Transubstantiation you can take the back to at least the 14th Century with John Wycliffe, and John Huss.

Blessings
George

[Benjamin Burch]

Truer words were never spoken! But, please do note that I used the qualifying clause "in all of its expressions for 1900 years." Normally, when Ben and I go round about such things, the "things" usually have a significant history of dispute, often at least 400-500 and again often deal with Pre vs. Post Reformation thought.

In the case of my example we have significant unanimity, the RCC practices closed or close Communion for baptized believers; Closed for the EO and virtually all Protestants either use being believers, or baptized believers as a prerequisite for entry to the Table. As for Transubstantiation you can take the back to at least the 14th Century with John Wycliffe, and John Huss.

Blessings
George

So, basically, what your'e saying is... as long as the right people, whom you like, at a time you deem acceptable, come up with an idea you like, then that is okay to dispute... but not otherwise? That's what it sounds like.

1500 years is not enough... but 1900 is? That's incredibly arbitrary...

[Shea Zellweger]

So, what would you include or exclude from your theology of religious pluralism? Are you an exclusivist, and inclusivist or a pluralist and why?

David,
I'm having trouble understanding your usage of the term "religious pluralism."
As it's generally used in my contexts, the term has two meanings:
1) There are a variety of religions out there, and each of them have influence in the public square. This is generally used to contrast the difference between a "Christian nation" and a nation of religious pluralism, and it's more or less just an observation of the way things are.
2) That each faith has something valuable to contribute to everybody. This can easily cross into a sort of unitarian, "all paths lead to God" or "everyone is equally right" way of thinking. My first-semester seminar professor spoke a lot about religious pluralism, and emphasized that embracing pluralism does NOT mean mining other religions for things that you like and using them in your own. It's about moving beyond the confines of your own faith and embracing the faith lives of others.

While I enjoy interreligious dialogue, and believe that there are things we can learn from people of other faiths, ultimately I think a belief in Christ, the Triune God, and the Authority of the Scriptures (your #s 1-3) are non-negotiables for Christians, and they exclude us from embracing pluralism on the level that most pluralists advocate.

Your lists of essentials and non-essentials are still profoundly Christian in their makeup, and don't really address religious pluralism, so far as I can tell...

[Shea Zellweger]

So, basically, what your'e saying is... as long as the right people, whom you like, at a time you deem acceptable, come up with an idea you like, then that is okay to dispute... but not otherwise? That's what it sounds like.

1500 years is not enough... but 1900 is? That's incredibly arbitrary...

but Ben... 1900 is a BIGGER number than 1500 .

Seriously though George, the list of things that have gone undisputed for 1900 (Or 1500) years is... well, it doesn't exist. We may look back through our orthodox eyes and declare the people on the losing end to be "heretics," but at the time a lot of these essentials were being hammered out, they were just Christians who believed different things. Before the Church managed to get all the details hammered out, it underwent the Great Schism. I'm pretty confident that if we poked around, we'd find people who supported non-believers receiving the Eucharist...

[David Graham]

Thanks for everuone for your responses and sorry for my delay in getting back to you all..... it's a time zone thing.... if only the world was flat!!!

Religious pluralism is simply the fact that there are many religions existing at the same time. A religious pluralistic society is one in which many religion are practiced.... whether those religions are accepted by the majority within that society or not.

Traditionally, the various religions have not engaged in much dialogue, and some have regarded their particular tenets as exclusively correct. Other religions were either regarded as "evil" aberrations of their own understanding of religious truth (and therefore inferior) or as primitive human attempts to understand "the truth" prior to their own inception (therefore inadequate). The major religions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism all took this view. For some i.e. Christianity and Islam, this understanding was only compounded by their respective triumphalisms in areas that they "conquered".

But since the end of the colonial period (say early to mid 20th Century) we have had a new global phenomina emerging as a result of unprecedented global immigration (and intentional missionary initiatives) so that cultural and religious pluralism is now extant in most countries around the world. Particularly the major religions are now intersecting with each other as "conspicuous legitimate" religious players within most societies. e.g. In Australia while 70% of the population regard themselves as Christian, about 2% of people now call themselves Muslim with about 4% regard themselves as Buddhist (depending who you read for some people call themselves both Christian and Buddhist at the same time). Which also exposes a new phenomina where by there are now people who are "pluralistic" in their faith..... e.g. They might worship Krishna, follow particular Christian and Buddhist disciplines and (if they are female) wear a Muslim head scaff.

Likewise in India which has long been a strong religious pluralistic society, there are about 10 - 20 million Christians with a single denomination (the Church of Southern India having over 2 million members). I do not have any idea how many of these are individually "pluralistic" in their faith.

With all of this back ground, the Christian Churches need to develop their own theology of religious pluralism, so that they can determine where they stand with regard to other "faiths".

Are they "exclusivist", i.e. "Outside of the church/Christian faith there is no salvation? This belief will govern their attitudes towards other faiths. Little or no contact is possible.

Are they "Inclusivists", i.e. "Outside of Jesus Christ, the Saviour, there is no salvation"..... but as the Saviour, Jesus will find a way to bring salvation to those in the other faiths (Effectively Universalism in various degrees). I lean to this position to a point. Again this position will determine the relationship with other faiths. Mostly (amongst mainline Protestants) this takes the form of dialogue as "we" (sorry Freudian slip here) attempt to make "their" Saviour known to them.

Are they "Pluralists", i.e. "Outside of the world, there is no salvation". All faiths have a legitimate way of salvation for "devout" adherants. Christians in this category will engage in worship with other faiths.

All of that is my understanding anyway.... I hope that clarify's things somewhat???

"Your lists of essentials and non-essentials are still profoundly Christian in their makeup, and don't really address religious pluralism, so far as I can tell....

Yes, the "Essentials" are Christian, and my theology of "Pluralism" in practical terms is to dialogue with other faiths in order to learn about them and to make Christ known. In the "non-essentials", I might actually find something of value to my own walk of faith or I might find a way to connect better with a person of another cultural or religious background in order to share my faith more effectively.

[Hans Deventer]

This will please Hans greatly (lol!), but I would have a problem with sacraments being labelled essential. I have about as high a view of the sacraments as anyone on here, and I would certainly say that sacraments ought to be the normative, ordinary means of grace, but I just can't include them as essentials.

It does! You're getting in view, Eric!

In fact, I have a very hard time recognizing the Salvation Army as "Christian" in this respect.

Wow. This sounds pretty extreme. Are you serious, Ben? If so, what is the meaning of "Christian" if it isn't related to salvation (which I am NOT narrowing down to going to heaven or to hell)?

[Eric Frey]

To Christianity? I would put them above the Scriptures, as more essential to Christianity. People in countries where they cannot get Bibles, or it's hard to translate them, still have water, and can still partake of bread and wine.

In fact, I have a very hard time recognizing the Salvation Army as "Christian" in this respect. How does a Christian neglect the Sacraments? More importantly, how does one who claims to be a part of the Body of Christ refuse to partake of Christ's Body and Blood which makes us the Body through union with it? I just don't think they can be.

But starting with God's freedom, and therefore freedom to save those who are not Christians, is where I begin a pluralistic theology. In fact, the essential nature of the Sacraments frees me up to do this. For me, it is all about being Christian - being the Church as Stew said - first and foremost. It's a matter of identity.

Salvation in eternal terms is a separate question, one of which we can be assured of one thing: those who are a part of Christ's Body will share in the age to come with Christ.

I understand your argument very well, have thought about it much, And I am very close to agreeing. Yet I am not quite there -- which I why I can still be Nazarene. Should I ever take that one last step toward agreeing with you, I would have to realign myself.

[Rich Schmidt]

Are they "exclusivist", i.e. "Outside of the church/Christian faith there is no salvation? This belief will govern their attitudes towards other faiths. Little or no contact is possible.

Just a quick question: What do you mean by that last sentence? That Christians who take this exclusivist view are unable to have much contact with people of other faiths? Is the "contact" here interpersonal? Or do you mean they see few or no points of convergence between the Christian faith and the faiths of others?

Just asking. I know plenty of exclusivists who appreciate and enjoy relationships with people of other faiths. Just because they think they're wrong in their beliefs and (potentially) going to spend eternity separated from God doesn't mean they have to shun them or avoid them today. In fact, the evangelistic impulse would push them in the exact opposite direction.

That's why I think perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by contact...

[Dale Cozby]

We may look back through our orthodox eyes and declare the people on the losing end to be "heretics," but at the time a lot of these essentials were being hammered out, they were just Christians who believed different things. Before the Church managed to get all the details hammered out, it underwent the Great Schism. I'm pretty confident that if we poked around, we'd find people who supported non-believers receiving the Eucharist...

Doctrine of Orginal Sin, Eucharistic theology, Trinitarian theology, Iconology, The Canonization of Scripture, Papal and Church authorities, and I can think of 7 "heresies" about the dual nature of Jesus Christ to name a few items of debate about what was orthodox. I, like most of us, prefer to mix and match theology from many centuries of writing and sources rather than accept one group from one century and declare it the infallible orthodox understanding. I do tend to lean rather heavily on those guys that got thier stuff canonized though. Everyone else is just commentary.

[David Graham]

Just a quick question: What do you mean by that last sentence? That Christians who take this exclusivist view are unable to have much contact with people of other faiths? Is the "contact" here interpersonal? Or do you mean they see few or no points of convergence between the Christian faith and the faiths of others?

Yeah thanks Rich, I'm thinking more in terms of convergence, or or a formalised approach to dialogue with the aim of finding common ground and possibly working together. I wasn't suggesting that this was "impossible", but more improbable. I personally know some "exclusivists" who only want contact with those of other faiths so that they can "share" the gospel with them. A lot depends also on the "exclusivists" view of the other faith. e.g.. Is it "evil" (of the devil..... and I know some that think this way) or are they "merely" mislead?

On the other hand like yourself I know of an "exclusivist" (although these days I think that he is more like an "inclusivist" who really does genuinely try to understand the person of another faith perspective..... but I suspect that he is one of the "rare" ones.

[Todd Erickson]

There are a number of points where I think pluralism becomes an issue for folks. It may not be entirely applicable within the Nazarene Church, but here's a stab at where the spread happens with other groups:

1. What is the Gospel?

2. What is Salvation?

3. What does it mean to be good?

4. What is the meaning of this life?

5. Is there life beyond this world? (there are those especially of the Buddhist leaning who would join with the Jews of old (pre Hellenization) in saying that the objective is to live right with God here and now, because nothing is waiting beyond this life)

6. If Christianity becomes about who is in and who is out, does that actually reflect God?

7. Is God outside of creation, or is he a reflection of who you want to be, and thus want him to be?

[Larry Parsons]

My last paper I had to do for my Master's degree was on developing a Christian theology of religious pluralism.

I took the view that there were some things that were essential elements within Christian theology that were non-negotiatable, but that on many other issues it really didn't matter what we believed and so could dialogue with and possibly even embrace the ideas and practices of others outside of the Christian faith.

The essential elements for me were as follows:
1. The central place of Christ as the revelation of God and Saviour of the world. Here I tended to be inclusivist, emphasising the grace and mercy of God.

2. The Triune God

3. The Authority of the Scriptures

4. The place of the sacraments within the worship and ministry of the church

5. The essential nature of faith in the life of the believer

The non-essential beliefs included things such as eschatology (most of which is speculative anyway) , ecclesiology and missiology.

So, what would you include or exclude from your theology of religious pluralism? Are you an exclusivist, and inclusivist or a pluralist and why?

David, you ask if we believe in the exclusivist,inclusivist or a pluralist view. I think I would go with the inclusivist view and the reason for that is I also accept the post- mill view that believe all nation will worhship the Lord in the New Jerusalem at the end of histoty I also believe people everyday are becoming one with Christ out side the church.
Thanks
Larry

[Dale Cozby]

I also believe people everyday are becoming one with Christ out side the church.

If THE Bride of Christ is THE Church. Then those who come into oneness with Christ are in fact becoming THE Church. The Bride may be bigger than the dress we have made for her to wear. She is putting on some weight in these last days and getting a bit bigger and uglier than we would want to marry but Christ isn't going to marry her for her outward looks. She is having a hard time fitting in her dress. Even so, Lord Jesus come quickly.

[David Graham]

As one who has "hopeful universalist" tendencies, I lean towards the inclusivist position also, even though I can't see a universal turning of people to Christ in this world.

[Larry Parsons]

If THE Bride of Christ is THE Church. Then those who come into oneness with Christ are in fact becoming THE Church. The Bride may be bigger than the dress we have made for her to wear. She is putting on some weight in these last days and getting a bit bigger and uglier than we would want to marry but Christ isn't going to marry her for her outward looks. She is having a hard time fitting in her dress. Even so, Lord Jesus come quickly.

Don't you believe that God can work outside the church or is his grace limit!
Thanks
Larry

[Kevin Rector]

In fact, I have a very hard time recognizing the Salvation Army as "Christian" in this respect. How does a Christian neglect the Sacraments? More importantly, how does one who claims to be a part of the Body of Christ refuse to partake of Christ's Body and Blood which makes us the Body through union with it? I just don't think they can be.

You can't see how they can be because you are essentially a fundamentalist and extremely narrow in your viewpoint in regards to the sacraments. The Salvation Army practices a particular kind of living sacrament in the love and service they provide to the "least of these" that shames most of the bread eating and wine drinking church.

But we disagree on this point, and that's ok.

[Benjamin Burch]

You can't see how they can be because you are essentially a fundamentalist and extremely narrow in your viewpoint in regards to the sacraments. The Salvation Army practices a particular kind of living sacrament in the love and service they provide to the "least of these" that shames most of the bread eating and wine drinking church.

But we disagree on this point, and that's ok.

It's also because I'm generous and pluralistic. I have no need of someone to be "Christian" for me to think they're saved (as is probably evident by now). If I had some form of that (even inclusivism), I would probably sturcture my sacramental theology accordingly, and include the Salvation Army, who clearly bear the marks of salvation.

However, since I'm comfortable with non-Christians and non-Christian groups being saved, experiencing the Spirit, and bearing the fruits of the Spirit, it doesn't bother me much to draw a line between the two.

[Dale Cozby]

Don't you believe that God can work outside the church or is his grace limit!
Thanks
Larry

It has nothing to do with my limiting God it has to do with your limiting the church. The Church "the called out ones" needs to be properly defined. We are all outside the church before the faith in God leading to salvation comes to us. Thus God works in the world calling all to himself as his bride....His bride is THE church.

[Dale Cozby]

It's also because I'm generous and pluralistic. I have no need of someone to be "Christian" for me to think they're saved (as is probably evident by now). If I had some form of that (even inclusivism), I would probably sturcture my sacramental theology accordingly, and include the Salvation Army, who clearly bear the marks of salvation.

However, since I'm comfortable with non-Christians and non-Christian groups being saved, experiencing the Spirit, and bearing the fruits of the Spirit, it doesn't bother me much to draw a line between the two.

If I read you correctly then there is no need to preach the gospel of Christ to anyone or to take communion with Christ as long as we have a love fest and believe God loves us. Why call yourself by any name or identify the relatonship with God, or refer to anyone as saved or lost. Meaningless everything is meaningless....

[Hans Deventer]

If I read you correctly then there is no need to preach the gospel of Christ to anyone or to take communion with Christ as long as we have a love fest and believe God loves us. Why call yourself by any name or identify the relatonship with God, or refer to anyone as saved or lost. Meaningless everything is meaningless....

If I read you correctly, everyone who never confessed Christ is going straight to hell? Such a faith is meaningless, for it worships a monster.

[Kevin Rector]

It's also because I'm generous and pluralistic. I have no need of someone to be "Christian" for me to think they're saved (as is probably evident by now). If I had some form of that (even inclusivism), I would probably sturcture my sacramental theology accordingly, and include the Salvation Army, who clearly bear the marks of salvation.

However, since I'm comfortable with non-Christians and non-Christian groups being saved, experiencing the Spirit, and bearing the fruits of the Spirit, it doesn't bother me much to draw a line between the two.

Fair enough.

Yet to be Christian is to be like Christ. It is not being a member of A church (THE church yes, A church no) nor is it participating in a particular ritual - important as that ritual may be. Millions of people drink wine and eat bread every week and are not even remotely Christian. The sacraments are great, but they are not magic - if Christ is not in your heart - if you are not being transformed by Christ in your life, if you lack love for God and others, then the sacraments won't keep you from being a heathen. That's why I have a problem with your assertion - because being saved is what makes one a Christian and being a Christian is what makes one a member of the church catholic.

[Dale Cozby]

If I read you correctly, everyone who never confessed Christ is going straight to hell? Such a faith is meaningless, for it worships a monster.

Hans, why are you popping off? I wasn't even addressing you. secondly, I said nothing about confession. I only spoke of communion as the means of grace and faith in God as a means of grace. If confession is a monstor then why preach the gospel at all? Why confess christ if it is pointless in this wolrd or the next? And where did I bring up going straight to hell if you don't confess? Never said hell. Your own bias is showing.

If I read you right, then you are preaching universalism and that confession, communion and the churcch are all meaningless to salvation or eternity. Two can play accusing extreme rhetoric.

I am asking Ben to explain what exactly makes being a Christian, or a part of the church any different from all the pagans working thier way to God or the heathens who don't care at all or the atheists who hate the idea of God/gods. If salvation is unversal, then the church is meaningless except as do gooders in this world. Might as well be Buddhist, or might as well please the sinful nature and live life as one pleases fulfilling every evil inclination.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, why are you popping off? I wasn't even addressing you.

You're not seriously wondering why someone is responding to a public post on a public forum, right? Just asking.

As to the rest, my response to your post was in the same vein as your reply to Ben's. I'm glad you're starting to realise that.

BTW, I'm happy to delete your post and mine. If you just had an off day, that's OK. It happens to all of us.

Oh yeah and we are posting on the POST Traditional forum here. You noticed? I almost got the impression you were defending very traditional theology. And we don't want to abuse the situation that the forum host is in the hospital.

[Dale Cozby]

You're not seriously wondering why someone is responding to a public post on a public forum, right? Just asking.

Since the post quoted Ben and since I referred to "you" meaning Ben, I am wondering why you always feel the need to interject your two bits into a question posed to another person and to do so in a way that is basically a flame.

As to the rest, my response to your post was in the same vein as your reply to Ben's. I'm glad you're starting to realise that.

Not really. I see I asked Ben to explain why be a Christian. You then bring up the harshest Traditional theological position possible and attach it to me as if that is my position.

Oh yeah and we are posting on the POST Traditional forum here. You noticed? I almost got the impression you were defending very traditional theology. And we don't want to abuse the situation that the forum host is in the hospital.

I thought it post traditional as in built upon, in addition to traditional, that which follows naturally, not anti-traditonal, or neo-heretical. But hey its your forum. If we can't compare traditional, neo-traditonal and post traditional thologies just say so. It might be easier for us weak minded souls to understand you better if we can ask questions of comparisons to contrast the two. If this is the pluralistic universal arm of the CotN I am in the wrong forum indeed.

If my posting is out of line just delete me and I will leave.