Post Calendar
-
Podcast Feeds
Jul
20
The Gnaw of Law-Contradiction
July 20, 2007 |
Posted by michaelp · Filed Under Theological Questions, Salvation, New Testament, Christian Life, Apologetics
While I was the Campus Crusade for Christ director at Duke University in the early 90’s, I enjoyed an on-going conversation about the nature of religious truth with my more liberal colleagues on the Duke Religious Life Staff.
I would argue that, like other kinds of statements, religious statements are subject to the laws of logic. In particular, religious statements are subject to the law of non-contradiction. These colleagues disagreed. They argued that religious statements are more like poetic utterances that can only partially describe the sublime, eternal, unknowable, transcendent… Whatever.
On one occasion, during a retreat designed to promote interfaith dialog, our Jewish facilitator said that we needed to foster respect for each other by affirming that all religious truth is true. I raised my hand. When he called on me, I asked, “If all religious truth is true, what about the religious truth, ‘some religious truth is false.’ Is that religious truth true?” To which he accused me of merely playing word-games.
Nothing new here. We expect liberals to demonstrate this strange view of religious truth. We’d probably be a little disappointed if they didn’t. However, years later, I was completely astonished to hear the same reasoning coming from my pastor with a degree from a top-tier evangelical seminary.
I had been troubled by some things I had been hearing from the pulpit. Specifically, I thought that he and the associate pastor had made statements that contradicted the Gospel. That was bad enough, but sometimes they even seemed to contradict themselves. This was most obvious to me after two particular sermons, several weeks apart.
In the first sermon, the pastor taught from Ephesians 1-3, where Paul makes the scandalous claim that Christians have, through faith, secured the unconditional blessings and unfathomable riches of Christ. Several weeks later, during a fund-raising campaign, the same pastor taught from the Parable of the Talents. During this sermon, he warned the congregation of the possibility that they might squander their eternal reward and be left bankrupt in heaven if they didn’t “invest” their talents wisely.
Shortly after the second sermon, I made an appointment to talk with him. During our meeting, I asked him how he would resolve the contradiction posed by his own two sermons. He said that each sermon reflected a different aspect of the truth and that it was important to “balance” them. For him, balance meant preaching one message on one day, when people needed to be encouraged, and preaching another message another day, when people needed to contribute more money.
I affirmed the need for “balance” in Christian teaching. There are many different topics that need to be addressed over time, and it is unhealthy to focus on only a few. Balance is a way of giving appropriate time to all the important topics. However, I argued, it could not be properly employed to resolve contradiction. He disagreed.
We have since left that church. The practice of calling the believer’s eternal happiness into question in order to motivate obedience ran deep and wide. What was most frustrating was my inability to get any traction discussing the issue. In the end, I think that our disagreement about the nature of religious truth played a significant role.
Comments
6 Comments so far
-
-
Theologica
Check it out here.
-
Parchment and Pen Blog - Internet Monk
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- Faith and Theology
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
-
Warning: Attempt to assign property of non-object in /home/ttpstude/public_html/blogs/wp-includes/rss.php on line 428
Warning: Attempt to assign property of non-object in /home/ttpstude/public_html/blogs/wp-includes/rss.php on line 428
Powered by FireStats
I don’t know….I think there are very clear passages that speak of degrees of reward in heaven. While all are saved to eternal life, some build on that foundation with hay and stubble which is burned up and they escape only with their eternal life. At least that’s what I remember off the top of my head….I’ll have to go back and read it again…
For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw– each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
(1Co 3:11-15)
NET note:
sn The Day refers to the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 1Co_1:8; 1Co_5:5) when each Christian worker will appear before Christ for evaluation of his ministry. Paul’s constant motivation was to be pleasing to the Lord in that day (2Co_5:9-10) and receive his commendation (1Co_4:5).
Like I said this could be a misinterpretation or misapplication….has anyone done a deeper study?
Doc,
So are you saying there is a true contradiction in scripture, and that this is ok? Or are you saying that this passage must be somehow understood in light of the more specific Ephesians passage?
I’d strongly argue for the latter option.
The 1 Cor. passage is clear on a few things, but unspecific on many others. If you looked at 5 commentaries you could probably find 6 opinions as to what it meant. ;^) Dr Fee (How to Read the Bible For all ITS Worth) argues that this is addressing Pastors building churches not founded on Christ and that works not done of faith will not be rewarded. (Whether the latter applies just to the pastors, or to everyone is up for debate). Regardless, it seems to state that works worthy of a reward are rewarded, and those that are not worthy of a reward are burnt up - *poof*. So I’m not going to be rewarded for things that aren’t worthy of a reward - ok, that seems fair. ;^) It’s not my human effort, but my acts of faith, done through the empowering of the Holy Spirit and due to my unity with Christ that would be “worthy” due to Christ’s worthiness.
I’d also argue that the reward, though specifically mentioned, is never clearly defined (what is it, how “much” is it, what’s it for, etc). When compared to “unfathomable riches”, I don’t see this as the *same* thing. IE, Ephesians is talking about my inheritance, secure in Christ. 1 Cor is not talking about that, but something different - compensation for acts of faithfulness. And think about it this way… if I have all of eternity to try to measure His wealth, showered on us in Christ Jesus, but cannot (immeasurable, unfathomable, exceeding, surpassing - all words used to translate uperballw huperballo see:http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=5235) then it must be pretty big!
The amazing part is that we’ve not earned any of it - Christ paid for it all and we are partakers in it. It is secure, waiting for us in Heaven. I am reminded of 1 Peter 1 -
1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he gave us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 1:4 that is, into an inheritance imperishable, undefiled, and unfading. It is reserved in heaven for you, 1:5 who by God’s power are protected through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
Wow!
Cheers,
-steve
I think the concept of earned rewards is consistent with a Gospel that promises unconditional eternal happiness. Given the description of the blessings secured by every believer through faith, the idea that the loss of rewards could possibly render a Christian unhappy in heaven seems absurd to me.
I would be careful modifying “eternal life” with the word “only.” It sounds a little like, “Bill Gates only made a fortune at Microsoft.”
I am not convinced that, in I Cor 3, Paul is calling into question the degree of eternal happiness a man will experience in heaven. He is calling into question the value of a man’s works on earth. I think that one must bring the assumption that rewards=eternal happiness to the text. I don’t see it.
Biblical hope is the confident expectation of future blessing. If our eternal happiness depends substantially on our obedience to God, then we have little basis for Biblical hope. Any confidence that we have secured eternal happiness, would be based on a high assessment of our own past and future works, not on a high assessment of God’s grace.
I don’t know I think it is one of those things that are spelled out well enough in scripture to be certain about. I think we will all be happy in heaven, but it is quite likely that there are different levels of responsibility and reward and a hierarchy in heaven. Revelation seems to imply that martyrs have a special place.
I don’t know…..
that is “are NOT spelled out well enough” sorry
I’m not sure what you mean.
One can hold to different levels of responsibility in heaven without contradicting Eph 1-3.
But to teach that a believer can find himself “thrown into the outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth” is to deny the basis for Christian hope. We, each of us, would still have much to fear.
Am I wrong?