No, CS. My comment you quoted that you agreed with was my comment about FOLLOWING Jesus, not a comment about “saving faith”.

To you, saving faith entails a pretty detailed list of specific items to believe about Jesus, God, Heaven, Hell, etc. Even to the point of saying that somebody who truly believes in Jesus and trust Him for their salvation can somehow not be saved.

I can not disagree strongly enough. That is not saving faith, but merely intellectual assent. There are plenty of folks who follow Jesus and believe in him, and yet do not agree with some pretty basic orthodoxy. I would conjecture it’s totally possible for them to be saved. Are they wrong about stuff? Sure, Maybe I am, too. Will the Holy Spirit guide us all into all truth. Sure, maybe not “all truth” till we get there and see face to face, but it will happen for all of us, and it happens with me as I go along in this life of following Jesus.

Again, we all have problems with our theology. Our theology doesn’t save us. Jesus does. He’s real, and you can follow him and be wrong about a great many things.

Just a thought: personally I find the discussion of ‘salvation’ in the abstract to be problematic. In the context of Second Temple Judaism, the ‘salvation’ which Jesus and John the Baptizer preached was the salvation of (a remnant of) Israel from historical judgment (the ‘wrath of God’). This ‘salvation’ is of course to be located in the larger narrative of God’s redemptive purposes for Creation and his calling of Abraham and Sarah’s descendants.

But my point is that if we fixate on ‘what it takes to be saved’ (faith? saving faith? orthodoxy? defined by which church?), we tend to fall back into the Lutheran error of thinking primarily in terms of a legal standing before God (i.e. ‘righteous’ or ‘unrighteous’). But if serious study of Scripture teaches us anything, it’s that this narrowing of the scope of ‘salvation’ is unbiblical!

Let us think clearly and precisely about doctrine, but let us remember that God’s salvific purposes in the world are to be carried out by the Church. That is, ‘salvation’ is corporate! It is personal AND social redemption from the fallen patterns of this world (e.g. pride, lust, greed, materialism, consumerism, etc.). In an important sense then, ‘salvation’ is God’s bringing into the present the future plan for redemption for all Creation. That is ‘salvation’ carries the already/not yet mark of God’s Reign. To be ‘saved’ is to be baptized. But baptism is the first step, not the last, and sanctification also is ‘salvation’.

Put succinctly, you might say no one is fully ‘saved’ yet. And no community is fully ‘saved’ yet. Those of us who pledge allegiance to Jesus through baptism are called to transformation through attentiveness to the Spirit, but I insist that this is a process, a ‘race’. None of us have crossed the finish line yet.

Maybe that wasn’t helpful, I don’t know. I just felt the discussion of ‘salvation’ was unnecessarily narrow. Do with that what you will.

Peace,
-Daniel-

Wendi:

This may sound like splitting hairs, but I think this is what I was trying to get at:

“CS – over and over Jesus talks about FAITH saving, not knowledge or correct doctrine. “

No, by GRACE we are saved, through FAITH.  Our faith cannot save us, it is only by God’s grace that we are saved.

So, how does that relate to correct Biblical understanding of topics such as Hell as I have been discussing?  I would say that to have faith in something, that person should have correct understanding of it. 

For example, if I had faith that Jesus saved me, but my belief in Jesus was that he was a twelve-horned fish who lived in the Baltic Sea, that would be erroneous.  That sort of faith would not be in line with the grace offered by God.

Don’t get me wrong, I am willing to consider that people who do not have total correct Biblical understanding could go to Heaven when they die.  Yet for a pastor like McLaren to preach something other than the literal version of Hell presented in the Bible to people, especially after being approached by other believers for correction, is heretical.

--
CS

Also,

on the “faith saving” issue, we are splitting hairs here.

After all, in Luke 7:50 [Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace."] Hmmm… sounds like somebody’s faith saved them.

Wendi:

“Please show us one passage that supports your claim that believing in a literal hell is required for salvation (and I know you claim Jesus believed in a literal hell – which may be true, but that doesn’t provide evidence that it is required for salvation). “

Hermeneutically, the first thing to look for would be a verse that says, “If you don’t believe in Hell properly, you will not be saved,” or, conversely, “Proper belief in Hell is a requirement for salvation.” You probably knew this when you wrote the question, but there is no such verse in the Bible.  So what do we have, instead, that may lend credence to my belief that a person should have a proper understanding of a literal Hell as a part of their salvation?  (Note that I did not say “must,” but said, “should,” which leaves a door open for flexibility.)

The Bible says in Ephesians 2:8-9 that says that we are saved by grace through faith.  I agree totally with this, and do not believe in burdening people with additional requirements for salvation (sorry to disappoint, Peter).  Our salvation is solely dependent on God’s grace and what He did on the cross.  So, let’s take a little more in-depth look at faith.

Proper knowledge with faith is something that the Bible demonstrates people should have.  Peter commends people in 2 Peter 1:5 to, “add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge.” So, there is a tie-in with knowledge.  How does that affect people?

In 2 Timothy 2:16-18, for instance, Paul rebukes Hymenaeus and Philetus for saying that, “the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.” This shows that having doctrines that do not match up with Scripture and prophecy is wrong and can lead peoples’ faith astray.  I would say that the same goes for preachers who deny a literal view of Hell.  (Additionally, this is the same Hymenaeus that gets referred to in 1 Timothy 1:18-20, who, with Alexander in tow, suffer “shipwreck” in their faith by rejecting certain knowledge about Timothy, again crystallizing this idea.)

In Titus 1:13-14, similarly, Paul also links faith and truth by saying, “This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” So to be sound in the faith, Paul says there is again some knowledge of truth required.

With these sorts of verses, I attest that a person should have proper knowledge as a part of their faith in their salvation.  Not a requirement, but it prevents error that could be harmful and lead to false conversion.  I also attest that for a pastor to say something grossly contradicting the Bible could damage the faith of others.

--
CS

CVP training for the CCVP certification exam using CCVP practice test questions
CCVP Certification
MCP Certification

McLaren says the church has had most things wrong since the second century.  I heard him say that in an interview with Steve Brown about his book “everything must change") McLaren is not dangerous because he is questioning the literal existence of a place called hell, he is dangerous because he loves his questions more than answers.  When I first met him he was aksing some questions that were about the transition taking place in a generation of Christ followers.  We discussed several things together.  What has happened with him IMO is that he simply got in a habit of deconstruction.

I agree Daniel, he does ask questions for those reasons but you cannot blame others for his habits.  He reminds me of the critical parent who gently can only find wrong with their child.  Whose critique oriented and deconstructing questions are couched in I love you so I have to ask you this, have to tell you this, have to say this to you. 

He loves the church but can only point out how big her butt has gotten… is another way to say it.  He comes across as a guy who has simply gotten in a bad habit of deconstruction.

I have read some of the people you site and I get McLaren.  Don’t assume because we disagree with Wright or McLaren that we misunderstand them.  This mindset communicates if we were just a bit more enlightened then we would see things correctly.

CS, while I agree that part of the foundation of knowledge Christians should have is an understanding of hell, I can understand why there are vast differences in peoples’ understanding of hell.  If I read only the KJV for an understanding of hell I may get a vastly different image than if I read only the NIV.

Depending on the translation used, the word Hell is found in the Bible up to 54 times (54 times in the KJV, in the NET Bible you only find the word hell 16 times, 20 times in the NLT, and 14 times in the NIV).  It is translated from several different words with various meanings.  In the Old Testament from the Hebrew “Sheol,” which means the grave or the place of the dead.  In the New Testament from the Greek “Hades,” which again means the grave or place of the dead, from the Greek “Gehenna,” which means the “place of burning” and seems to refer to the Valley of Hinnom which was located outside of Jerusalem.  It was into this ravine that the people of Jerusalem threw their trash which they burned using brimstone (sulfur) to ignite and burn the trash.  I believe they also burned the bodies of criminals and such that no one cared to bury properly there.
None of these words really translate clearly into the modern day concept of the literal hell that you seem to espouse.  The modern image of hell seems to come mostly from the writings of the poet Dante and his book, Inferno.  Dante’s Inferno was written sometime between 1308 and 1321 and greatly influenced people’s concept of hell.  By the time the King James Bible was written between1604-1611 Dante’s image of hell had been widely accepted and may have influenced the translation of the various different words from the old manuscripts into the common word “hell”.

Isn’t there heaven and then anything else or “not heaven” or hell?  (heaven = good) (anything else/hell = bad). 

All this to ask that while an understanding of hell is important, is knowing exactly where hell is and what it will look like to those who go there really necessary?  What do you mean by the “literal version of Hell presented in the Bible”?

DanielR:

“Isn’t there heaven and then anything else or “not heaven” or hell?  (heaven = good) (anything else/hell = bad). “

I overlooked this question initially.  By this definition, earth would equal Hell, because it is not Heaven and not completely good.  And I think that we could both see how that logic is incorrect.

--
CS

CS, I followed your previous discussion of “what knowledge is necessary as a part of our saving faith?”

I was interested specifically in understanding what you meant by “literal version of Hell presented in the Bible”?

I’m sure Peter, Leonard, Wendi, et al, believe in heaven and hell, and although Brian McLaren’s concept of hell may be different than yours or mine I believe from what I’ve read of his writing on the subject that he does believe in heaven and hell.

If someone says that hell is a state of being rather than a place, I don’t think that means that they don’t believe in hell.  If someone says they don’t believe hell is really located underground in the middle of the earth, that doesn’t mean they don’t believe in hell. 

It seems to me that you’re saying a person has to believe in the idea of hell as a physical place, such as is described in Dante’s Inferno, or they don’t really believe in hell.

It seems to me that the scriptures use the image of Gehenna to represent hell because that image was relevant to people at that time, it was an image they could relate to; the image of never-ending death and decay, of fire and the smell of burning sulphur and they could imagine what it would be like to be confined to such a place. 

Today that image is not so relevant to people.  We have cartoons with little demons running around poking people with little pitchforks and we are subjected to images all the time designed to minimize the seriousness of hell and make the devil seem not that menacing.  Satan wants to lull people into complacency, into not worrying too much about the consequences of sin because hell isn’t really that menacing.

I don’t see a problem in telling people you don’t know what hell is realy like, as long as you can help them understand that hell is where they don’t want to spend eternity and that hell is the very serious consequence of sin.  If someone is really afraid of fire then Dante’s image of hell may be very relevant to them and help them understand.  For someone who struggles with depression relating hell as a place of eternal torment where despair is omnipresent and the sadness is like a weight around your neck constantly dragging you down for all eternity may be an image they can better relate to.

I think we all believe in hell, but you seem to be saying that people who don’t believe in the same image of hell as you don’t really believe in hell.  I guess what I’m trying to say is that I don’t see a big difference in where you seem to stand on the concept of hell and where everyone else in the conversation stands.  The difference seems to be only in your mind.  I think we all agree but it seems like you don’t think we agree.

Since when does God give us the option to choose what part of His Word, The Bible (God’s spoken and written word) and Jesus (God’s living word), to believe? If you do not believe it all then how can you believe any of it? I do not understand how “Christians” can say they believe in Jesus and His salvation, but deny His Word to be totally true. So many of them want to deny the first part of the Bible, creation,and the last part, His return and judgment of the world. If there is no judgment of sin then there is no salvation from the judgment of sin. You can be sincere about your beliefs, but be sincerely wrong. The Bible and God’s teachings determine if the Jesus Christ one professes is the true Jesus Christ. Many cults claim they believe in Jesus and that their slavation comes through Jesus, but if their belief about Jesus and His teachings is not in agreement with the Bible it is false doctrine and therefore wrong. McLaren wants to pick and choose which parts of God he believes. He does not like the God of Exodus and Joshua who cammands the children of Israel to destroy cities and all the people when they entered the Promised Land, but likes the God of love and compassion who sent Jesus to die for us(Generous Orthodoxy p.185). I guess he does not like the God who killed all mankind, but 8 people by flooding the earth, killed the firstborn of Egypt, and drowned Pharoah’s army in the Red Sea. He believes that one can be a follower of Jesus and remain within unchristian religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Jesus stated that you are either for Him or against Him. You cannot serve two masters. How can you, as he states in Generous Orthodoxy (p.20), follow Jesus without identifying yourself as a Christian. I wish people would make a real distinction between emerging and emergent churches. Too many times these are used interchangably, but the views and beliefs are very different.

I pray that God would bless you all, but the fact is that one day God will judge us all. Our belief about Jesus is just as important as our believe in Jesus. The one determines the other. Without His salvation we will not be found innocent. We will be found guilty and the judgment will be eternity in hell. I hope to see you in heaven.