Last night I was reading some old transcripts from CNN segments with Larry King. The first was after the September 11th bombing of 2001 and the second was after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The panel for the first discussion was Deepak Chopra (spiritual adviser, best-selling author of "How to Know God"), Rabbi Harold Kushner (a leader in Judaism and author of "Living a Life That Matters"), Bruce Wilkinson (an Evangelical pastor and author of "The Prayer of Jabez"), Dr. Maher Hathout (a scholar of Islam and senior adviser to the Muslim Public Affairs Council), Dr. John MacArthur (an Evangelical pastor and president of The Master's Seminary). The only change in line up for the second segment was Bruce Wilkinson did not attend and Father Michael Manning (a Roman Catholic priest and host of the international TV show "The Word in the World") did.
Now the discussion was suppose to be about the jihad bombers of September 11th and whether or not the war in Iraq was just. The discussion however took a different turn and went in the direction of the different faiths. In both of the discussions, the men on the panel said that there are many ways to God and that all the faiths were appropriate ways to God, except Dr. John MacArthur and Bruce Wilkinson (who would not speak against this notion but did not affirm it either). MacArthur was asked on whether or not he felt the men who crashed the plains into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were going to heaven and he said no. Then He went on to explain that they would go to hell because they did not have faith in Christ—which was evident by their works. Then the other, non-Christian, panelist became upset with this blanket statement—which condemned them to hell also.
What surprised me was that in the second discussion, which turned out to be much the same in reference to who can be saved was that Father Michael Manning also agreed that one could reach God through other means then Christ.
Now I know that I am a fundamentalist in my thoughts and I strongly believe that Dr. MacArthur is right in saying that no one goes to God, but through Jesus Christ. Yet, even in the Christian world—Evangelical and Catholic alike—people are saying that God can be reached through many portals of faith…and faith in what is not as important as faith itself.
Where do you guys stand on this? Is Christ the only way or not?
Christ is the way to be redeemed and transformed. But I don't know that it's my job to ever tell somebody they're going to heaven or hell.
ReplyDeleteRedeemed and transformed, yes, very true. So you therefore agree that Christ is the only means for one to enter into a relationship with God and therefore the only way for one to be saved and go to heaven?
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that it is your job or mine to tell them they are going to heaven or hell. But I do find it to be my job, as a Christian, to tell them there is only one way to heaven...and His name is Jesus...and I believe that because that because the New Testament says so. I'm not telling people they are going to heaven or hell. I'm telling them the only way to get there, and it is up to them to decide what the Scripture is telling them in that regard.
I find that it is the "job" of any Christian to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the redeeming power of God's love.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Jesus is the means for one to be redeemed. I preach this and teach this. I'm simply not sure that I'm willing to say that the function, goal, or job of a Christian is to preach eternal reward or eternal condemnation. Rather, I believe is the "job" of the Christian to go out into the world, sharing a gospel message of love and redemption from sin and self, and baptizing all nations in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Josh, you said it is your job to "preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the redeeming power of God's love," but not to, "preach eternal reward or eternal condemnation."
ReplyDeleteAre they not one in the same. If you say that through Christ you are freed from the debt of sin and are no longer enslaved to it you have been redeemed. But if you do not except Christ you are still endebted and remain its slave and there is no redemption.
Why are you trying to get away from preaching eternal reward and eternal hell? Did not Christ speak on both of them quite often, and was not hell referred to more then heaven? It is important, I agree, to preach of God's love and redemption, which is found in the death and resurrection of Christ. But is it not also important to preach past the temperal to the eternal?
Would we not be doing some one an injustice if we only tell them about redemption, if we don't tell them about what will happen if not redeemed?
To me it only makes since that Christ's gospel carries with it the message of both heaven and hell, because both signify the importance of His coming.
I'm just not confident that we can preach hell without resorting to scare tactics. Decisions made out of fear are not as solid as decisions made out of love. Furthermore, there is no fear in love.
ReplyDeleteDo I think it's a threat? Probably.
Do I think that people should be aware? Yes.
Do I think I should make it my first concern to appeal to another person's self-interest to draw them into a faith that speaks of humbling the self? No.
Yeah, I agree with you on the threat of preaching hell and people only wanting the "fire insurance" plan and not the real thing. So that is a hard one, and one that I have thought about quite a bit. I have not yet come to the point that I can say how and when to preach on hell, so I guess I leave it up to the Spirit to guide me when I am that situation.
ReplyDeleteLike you said, I don't want to scare some one into getting saved, which most likely wont be real anyways, but I think it is good to make people aware that there are only two places where you will end up at.
Complicated issue and I agree with you for the most part I think. Good comment.