Blog

Business development and communications for growing businesses.

Question To Ponder

Posted May 26 2011 by Jonathan Brink in  with 19 Comments

So I was recently reading a post regarding a church and their Statement of Faith. If you’ve never read how I feel about these things, you can do so here. I think they are well meaning but can tend to create more problems than they are worth.

But as I was reading this churches statement, it said:

“We believe that salvation (the forgiveness of sins) is not linked to church membership, works, good deeds, heritage, or genealogy, but rather to Jesus Christ alone. Jesus Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross and sacrifice for the sins of mankind makes possible a relationship with Him. ”

All good so far.  And then it said:

We are “saved” when we acknowledge our sins and shortcomings and place our personal trust in Christ who made up the difference through His death and resurrection. Once this has happened, nothing can separate us from the love of Christ or change our standing before God; we are eternally His.”

So I’m curious.  How is when not a condition of the process, which then makes it a work? How would you answer.

Categories: 

About the Author

Jonathan BrinkI am an business development and communications consultant. I am also the senior editor and publisher for Civitas Press. I recently published, Discovering The God Imagination: Reconstructing A Whole, New Christianity. (Civitas, 2011)View all posts by Jonathan Brink →

  • David

    Jonathan I think “when” notes a process of understanding….one could call it work I supose as thinking through Gods story of the Gospel does involve our person and thought and hearts.u00a0 Some work there no doubt in a sense.u00a0 nnMy thoughts anyway….

    • David

      I would add to this so as not to present a wrong picture Salvation has nothing to do with acts of right living or religious activity.u00a0 That indeed would be a sad perspective and against what God has told us in Scripture.

  • Annie

    I just asked my grandmother this same question. She had no sense that any mental operation could be considered work. If you aren’t doing something visible, outward, physical, then it isn’t “works.” Not that I buy her answer.

  • Anonymous

    totally valid question – I think this is why people are Calvinists. They at first say we saved by grace, but then they add through faith because it’s not just anyone, but believing is still a work in some way and so they ultimately conclude that God chose in advance. nnSo to answer your question I think God’s grace just is. It’s there, it exists, there truly is nothing we do to earn it or get to benefit from it eternally.

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      So does it then apply to everyone, or just those who receive it?

  • Anonymous

    The Calvinist argument has always been that if one can choose salvation by faith… faith then indeed becomes a work. So then, in that view, election is a sovereign act of God and the ground of the L in Tulip (Limited Atonement). IOW, it is by unconditional election and irresistible grace that one is saved. Likewise, it posits that if one has even the smallest involvement in one’s salvation that it is not then by God but by ourselves. God is totally sovereign.u00a0nnThis makes God arbitrary and capricious by virtue of election of some and rejection of others and is the mainu00a0argument against Calvinism. On the other hand, the choice/faith-work option robs God of sovereignty and makes us our own saviors.nnThis is the main reason that I am a universalist that sees the sovereignty of God as paramount to the redemptive plan that was put in place before creation. God has redeemed all creation and will bring that to fruition in his own time and way. u00a0

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      Joe, I know you know this but I make a third argument in my book that we’re all already in, but that we see ourselves as outside.u00a0 That removes the necessity of works, and keeps God’s sovereignty in tact, as well as our choice.u00a0

      • Anonymous

        Jonathan, I realize that and… quite frankly it is a very appealing idea but, it seems to me that it is too easy for people to opt out so I would really like to hear more about what you think it means to opt out or in. Opting out without a clear understanding of the truth is what I have a problem with, and Christianity has told the story in such a way as to facilitate the opting out without really understanding the truth.

        • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

          The basic nature of God’s creation is good.u00a0 And the central reason in the story for opting out is guilt, which is our bodies avoidance of reality.u00a0u00a0 So in the presence of reality (a combination of God’s presence, grace, the cross, and our freedom) I don’t see why anyone would opt out.u00a0 It has no practical value.u00a0 The only reason to continue to opt out would be to engage one’s own self-destruction, and that is technically not possible.nnI have a friend who studies near death experiences, and the universal response (that’s not an exaggeration) is one of complete awareness to love, which is technically a judgment.

          • Anonymous

            Thanks for the clarification… That makes you almost a universalist in my view and to tell you the truth, I would be very happy with that. Perhaps I have been trying to frame this in light of John 14:6.nnHowever, as I have looked at that passage over the years I understand it differently. I will post the Young’s Literal Translation here;u00a0John 14:6 u00a0Jesus saith to him, `I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one doth come unto the Father, if not through me;…. in my view it is very possible that the only way that au00a0Buddhist or anyoneu00a0comes to the Father is through the work of Christ Jesus as Jesus work was universal.nnBlessings, JonathannJoen

    • David

      Joe, In all honesty I just don’t see universalism as noted anywhere in the narritive of Scripture let alone the very words of Jesus.u00a0 In fact you can see throughtout the NT a very different story especially in The Revalation.u00a0 nnNot to disagree with your theology here as that’s not the point…where do you get the idea that everyone will be saved somehow in the end ?u00a0

      • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

        David, the historical understanding of the restoration of all things is called Apocatastasis. It has an actual verse that it directly corresponds to in Acts 3:21: “He must remain in nheaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he npromised long ago through his holy prophets”.u00a0 It was pronounced anathema in Constantinople in 543. n nnhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ApocatastasisnnThe idea of apocatastasis is actually quite large.u00a0 I’ve found verses that allude to it in every prophet, every Gospel, and every epistle.u00a0 I posted them in my book.

        • David

          Joe & Jonathan,nnI agree with the issue that God is one day going to restore all of His creation.u00a0 Think Scripture is plainly clear on that.u00a0u00a0What I’m not sure is what does it mean that He will restore all of His creation ?u00a0 Example:u00a0 Satan is a createdu00a0angle.u00a0 Yet he apparently is destined for the lake of fire !u00a0u00a0 I don’t see that as restoring “all” His creation.u00a0 nnI think the very Words of Jesus have to weigh in here.u00a0 He discussed Hell, & death, and even people heu00a0did not knowu00a0telling them to depart from Him as he never knew them….nnI’m not trying to convince you both one way or the other just pointing out I’m not sure that I can agree with the concept of unvisersal salvation as such. nnAnother good example:u00a0 Chan pointed out on a recent video clip (you postedu00a0Jonathan) u00a0If we put our thinking above God we certanily are exchnaging ourselves for God.u00a0 His thoughts are not ours.u00a0 Just because we think something certanily doesn’t make it so.u00a0 nnBut isn’t God in fact God and we are people looking through a very merky and muddy water sort of speak when we begin to think we understand God’s way with Salvation & Hell ? nnJoe, I would also point out God is a potter and forms us for Himself and His Glory !u00a0 It’s clear from the Old Testiment &u00a0how he delt with some people and whole people groups, even animals.u00a0 Some of the things God did & asked to be done are very repulsive, but none the less it was done.u00a0u00a0 Does that lend itself to universalism ?u00a0 nnI could be wrong no question as maybe God will take those people who He wanted distroyed and even satan & say all is restored and your good now.u00a0 Seems a bit weird to me though…But to me, the idea of that is counter to scripture.u00a0 nnu00a0u00a0u00a0u00a0

          • Anonymous

            David, here is an alternative view that begins to explain Jesus teaching on hellu00a0http://paradigmshift-jmac.blogspot.com/2011/05/jesus-teaching-on-hell-isaiah-66-brief.html

      • Anonymous

        David, I would only ask you this… Is it indeed clear that scripture does not teach universalism and that it clearly teaches hell? or… Is it a matter of the way that one looks at the story? I am convinced that the references to hell and damnation are tied to Jewish apocalyptic and eschatalogical expectation and are not at all clear about the eternal state of anyone.u00a0nnThe expectation of future fulfillment is the view that twists the actual imminent message of the New Testament. u00a0There is an entirely different and equally valid way to look at Is 66:24; Mk 9:44-48. When you look at both in their historical context that passage is referring to theu00a0destructionu00a0of Jerusalem and the temple and not eternal punishment.

      • Obscuritus

        What if everyone were to get in? Would my relationship with Jesus be invalidated? Would I be angry because I bore the heat of the day while others get in simply because God is good? (Find yourself in Matthew 20:1-16). I find it both curious and disturbing that we evangelicals seem to want to validate our spiritual status by villifying those who have not made the same choice as us. I’d like to think I’d celebrate God’s goodness if He ends up letting everyone in at the end. Wouldn’t that be more reflective of God’s nature displayed in Scripture than constantly trying to find ways to interpret Scripture in ways that perhaps are not how God intends?

        • David

          Certanily not !u00a0 I wouldn’t be angry either !u00a0 I’d like to think it would be a time of real celebration no question.u00a0 nnI just don’t read the Scriptures that way.u00a0 I think Jesus Himself said it best when he told the dear folks who thought they were doing good to “depart from me I never know you” !u00a0 Seems pretty clear to me what that ment.u00a0 nnWe have a Great God and He can do whatever He wants.u00a0 But universal salvation doesn’t seem t me to be in line with the basic narritive of the Scriptures.u00a0 Just my take.u00a0 Doesn’t mean I’m correct and your wrong.u00a0 Just means I disagree with you is all.nnu00a0

  • Obscuritus

    It seems to me that such “Statements of Faith” are simply spiritualized misson statements that have been a part of the Americanization of the church.u00a0 We who are (were) in church leadership, having grown up with only an American interpretation of faith and practice (drawn of course, from an equally jaded interpretation of Scripture) cannot avoid the symptoms of the virus that has so deeply infected us. America became great because of a strong work-ethic. Why wouldn’t we apply the same to our salvation? This “be all you can be” philosophical virus has inevitably resulted in reducing Jesus from being the Master to simply being a very popular mascot. Until we do some radical surgery and courageously face who we are, we will continue to be satisfied catching sea bass when there are marlins to be had.

    • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

      Interesting thoughts to ponder.

Business development and communications for growing businesses.