When Christians fear death
I recently heard the story of a woman’s final days. She was riddled with cancer and undergoing chemotherapy. She was admitted to the hospital because the chemo had dropped her blood pressure dangerously low. She received multiple transfusions over the next few weeks, as doctors labored to stretch out her life. She was a professing Christian in her early 80s.
It’s a debate that most of us will participate in by the end of our lives—when to say no to the chemicals and equipment promising another day or week of unpleasant existence. Research indicates that in modern America the vast majority of health care spending takes place in the last two years of a person’s life, and that most of us spend those two years significantly incapacitated. It’s a blessing, on the one hand, that we live to be 75 on average, instead of 45. Many of us can count on being kept nourished and comfortable in our final days.
But something seems wrong about spending pints and pints of much-needed blood on an elderly woman in misery, just so that she can be miserable a few more days. Even were the patient eight instead of 80, many of us might pause at keeping her alive to suffer.
On the other hand we are right to view death as an enemy, and to value all life highly. We don’t want to give in without a fight, which would be a sin of hopelessness. But neither do we want to live in agony solely because we are afraid, deep down, that Jesus didn’t mean it when he promised living water. That too is a sin of hopelessness. Compounding the problem is that it’s much easier to think rationally about such things when it’s not us lying in that deathbed, or someone we love.
Nor can we trust the medical profession, which already gives its assent to execution, be it a child slaughtered in her mother’s womb, a comatose mother dehydrated to death in Florida, or a murderer on death row. It appears the American Medical Association is willing to traipse as far down the path of barbarity as its government is willing to allow.
No, we want doctors who are willing to exercise every ability and option in furtherance of human life. But that doesn’t mean we ourselves want to exercise those options, I don’t think. Most of us who have cared for a dying loved one recall reaching a point when we knew we should say: No more. It’s an agonizingly gray point for many of us, which is perhaps why some can’t put an end to the procedures. We try the elevated oxygen and the steroids and the blood transfusions, even as this person we love must be kept in a stupor of painkillers, because we are afraid of death.
Yet even in our healthy, wealthy society we cannot escape the call of Christ, which was unto death. Most of us will never face martyrdom or anything close (though sometimes we flatter ourselves otherwise). But each of us will likely face death, and so perhaps we ought to give some thought to what we believe about it. Do we really believe that it will lead to a life everlasting? Do we believe Christ pierced the dark veil, so that death will have no sting?
I don’t know how to get at those questions truthfully when we are so removed from real peril. I can believe the right answers in my head all I want, but it’s another thing entirely, isn’t it, when you see those dark stains on your MRI, or have a gun muzzle pressed against your temple? All I know for certain is that I don’t want to wait until the doctor is offering me the Faustian bargain of sustained suffering to realize that I’m not so sure that Christ spoke the truth. I don’t want my children—or anyone else for that matter—to see fear in my eyes when that day approaches. I imagine our eyes trained on death can be a powerful witness far surpassing any words we might proclaim in health. I just pray that mine witness to faith, not fear.



Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top46 Comments to “When Christians fear death”
My dad died moderately young (67) with three teenagers still at home. He was hospitalized for two months, with Mom and the doctors fighting for his life the whole time. After he died, Mom expressed to me that one of her regrets was that she didn’t put in tapes of his favorite hymns about heaven; she was so afraid that it would tip the balance toward his wanting to go there when she wasn’t yet ready to be a widow and single mom. Yet in retrospect she saw that he was going there anyway, and part of those last two months should have been considering the possibility that what was loss for us was victory for him.
Since then, I’ve seen parents of newborns with virtually no chance of life choose multiple, ultimately futile surgeries and parents of teens who are of age or nearly push for the teens to have aggressive, painful treatments that the doctors say aren’t likely to do any good. A friend of mine has her mother in assisted living, getting good care, but she tells me that if her mother were to develop cancer, she wouldn’t seek treatment. A young couple with a severely handicapped daughter fought heartily for years, and finally made the choice not to resuscitate her the next time she coded (which had happened multiple times in her three or four years).
In one sense we can’t “make these decisions ahead of time,” because there are variables and we can’t know for sure what we’d do. (I’ve said for years that I wouldn’t want chemotherapy or an organ transplant–I’ve rarely seen either of those harsh treatments do any long-term good–but part of that is that I’m single and have no children who’d benefit by just two more years with me. My sister–who does have children–and I have agreed for years we wouldn’t want to put an infant through painful treatment he couldn’t understand and that had little chance to save his life–but neither of us has ever been there.) But I do think that we need to know ahead of time that pursuing “life at all costs” just might keep a person in pain longer, cost a lot more, and even short-circuit what God might teach us in suffering.
I personally think we learn more when we accept suffering and death than when we fight it too hard, though that too probably varies by individuals. But fighting heartily up to the last moment does hinder the dying person’s chances to say goodbye and discuss with the living the fact that he’s on his way to Jesus–but then, neither of my parents had a chance to say goodbye anyway, because of the ways they died. But in the last few years I’ve been on more than one e-mail list (from people I never met personally) where it was obvious the person was dying, but the family sending the e-mails was frantic up to the very last day, “Pray for a miracle!” and never did start sending e-mails saying, “It looks like God has chosen not to heal him/her, so we have decided to stop treatment, and we’re talking with him about the glories of heaven.” With every part of my being, I’ve yearned for them to find that hope before the person’s death and not just fight the inevitable death.
Report comment to moderator
There is a wonderful book, although secular, about taking death back from the institutions and giving it back to the people who will go through it and preparing dfor that day. It talks to what all that entails and how to make the end of life experience, and death experience a positive thing for all involved.
Talking About Death, by Virginia Morris.
She has also written another book that I have recommended to many, Caring For Your Aged Parents. This one deals with everything from Alzheimers to wills and everything in between.
I have them both.
Report comment to moderator
I feel much as Cheryl D. does, except that I would consider the organ transplant, depending on the circumstances. There are many people who receive organ transplants who go on to live normal lives. I don’t know whether I know any personally, but I’ve read about them, including a young girl who lives here in town (she received an organ, I forget which one, from a young girl in another state, and the families finally met this year).
I do have kids, including a 9-year-old with mild autism, and I know it would be very hard for my husband to raise him without me. So until my son is grown, I would be much more willing to undergo treatment that would give me more years with him.
I wonder sometimes if I would be too willing to accept an early death, that I should plan on fighting it harder, that perhaps I might too easily justify letting myself die of cancer “in order to save resources for those who can benefit from it most.” When I was a young adult I was very depressed and sometimes had fleeting thoughts of suicide, though I never acted on them and was pretty sure I never would.
There are times I feel so tired of the stress and responsibility of work and family and too little time and money, and the thought of dying really does not scare me as much as life sometimes does. I would never kill myself to escape the problems of life but it might be hard to really put up a good fight if I found myself faced with cancer.
Report comment to moderator
As an aged parent who is still functioning, Klasko, I will read Caring for Your Aged Parents and see if it might contain anything useful for my daughter. I will also take a look at Talking about Death.
An interesting though difficult book I am reading is Denial of Death by Ernst Becker. He argues that many of the worst behaviors and characteristics in human beings results from an inability to come to terms with our own mortality.
I don’t much like the idea that I will cease to exist in regard to myself, but I am working on coming to terms with it. For example, my wife and I, after years of procrastination, focused, concentrated, and updated our wills. We kept them simple. In my case: paltry possession go to our daughter, if she’s gone, they go to her partner; if both gone, to my niece (who turned into a lovely woman). I didn’t put my granddaughter in because it complicated the will too much with trusts and all. I presume the mommies have made sensible provisions. I also suggested (in a separate email) if this doom-laden and unlikely scenario takes place, that she act kindly and sensibly in regard to RG. That’s as much as I am going to try and control the future after my demise.
I am an agnostic about the origin of the universe. I am an atheist about life after death.
I find the idea that humans have any existence after our physical demise utterly ridiculous and the most absurd thing humans have ever believed. Believing in a life after death was absurd when the pharohs built elaborate tombs for themselves and it is absurd in our current day of elaborate funerals and cemetaries full of crosses. Fine with me if my wife buries me in the woods behind the garden, but she can do as she pleases.
My wife and I were never much on saying, “I love you,” to each other. However, now each morning as I head out on the long trip to work, I kiss my wife and say, “If I get smashed on the freeway, I want the last thing you remember is that I said, ‘I love you’ before I drove away.” She responds in kind.
Report comment to moderator
Excuse me, I miswrote the title of the second book – it is Caring for your Aging Parents. I received that book when my dad was diagnosed with kidney cancer, which had metasticized to his bones. He only lived 6 weeks beyond his diagnosis and I wish I had been able to read that book about a year earlier. His affairs were not in order, and he did not die the way he wanted to die.
Random – That is the best way to leave one another in the morning. my husband’s departure for work in the morning see the same type of conversation at our house.
Report comment to moderator
As someone who has/had spent an enourmous amount of time with terminally ill children, I made a similiar observation. Devout reilgious parents were far more likely to adapt extraordinary methods to keep the child alive whereas liberal religious people and non-adherents accepted the inevitable. I’m not sure what to make of it. And quite frankly I not interested in any amount of psycho babble to explain it –
Report comment to moderator
“The first thought which, out of divine philanthropy, rules over the heart of man and leads the soul to life is the memory of death( … ). If man does not wipe out this thought and does not choke it in the cares and entanglement of worldly things and vanities, but rather increases it in quietude with constant study, then this thought will lead him to the profound vision which no one can express. The thought of death is hated very much by satan and he attempts with all of his strength to uproot it from man. And if it were possible, he would give to man all the kingdoms of the earth if only to remove with the cares of life such a thought about death from the mind of man( … ). The deceptive satan knows that if the remembrance of death remains constantly in man, his thought no longer remains attached to the deceptions of the present life, nor can the craftiness, the machination and the deceptions of satan approach man.”
– St. Isaac the Syrian
“Death both as a present and anticipated reality helps us very much. To look upon death or to anticipate it and to remember it convinces us to be humble and modest. It also helps us to live with prudence and to be kept from sin and, generally speaking, to be spared from every evil.”
– St. John Chrysostom
Thanks for the always timely reminder of our mortality, Tony. If we keep this in mind throughout our lives, God willing we’ll have the answers we need and the confidence in them when the time comes to depart this life.
Report comment to moderator
I’m reminded of the story of the elderly man who died and went to Heaven. As he was being shown around, he became more and more agitated until he was asked, “What’s wrong?” He said, “If my wife hadn’t been feeding me all those BRAN MUFFINS all these years, I could have been here a long time ago!”
In my experience, Christians who have battled for life have done so out of concern for their loved ones whom they are leaving behind, not out of fear for their own future. As far as I can tell, my grandfather’s only “fear” of death was that my grandmother wouldn’t be adequately cared for. And for me, caring for her is simply the keeping of the promise to him as well as being the duty of any Bible believing Christian.
A few years ago, a relatively young man in my church was found to have a very fast-growing and life-threatening cancer. A strong believer with a loving family, he fought for life for the sake of his wife and children — even to the point of going to Mexico for treatment. Against all earthly “odds,” he lived to celebrate their silver anniversary and to see the birth of their daughter, but went Home to be with the LORD shortly afterward. Through faith in God, incredible courage and the support of the church family, his widow keeps going and has been a great example to all of us. Did they believe less because of their fight for life? No way!
The sanctity of human life is evident in the Bible from Genesis through Revelation, and when making a decision for another individual I’ve had to pray about this very question. The answer for me was to fight for life and let the LORD be the referee.
“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Genesis 9:6
This verse illustrates the value of human life; I tremble for anyone who takes life and death questions into his or her own hands with a life and a soul in the balance. The state-sponsered murder of Terri Schiavo is an indelible blotch on the name of America, though she is only a symbol of the millions of innocent lives taken through euthanasia and through abortion. In the image of God made he man. There was a lot of deception in the media about the Schiavo case, as witnessed by her lawyer David Gibbs in his book “Fighting for Dear Life.” Terri was not in a “Persistent Vegetative State” nor on life support. She was handicapped but able to recognize and communicate with her parents, and the only treatments she needed were her feeding tube and speech therapy. In fact, we can only speculate now how much of her ability she could have regained if she had been given the needed therapy.
There’s an unfortunate side effect of the way people die today in hospitals, often sedated to ease the dying process for family members. In years gone by, those who were present with a dying person could be privy to last words and actions of the dying person that gave witness of either a believer’s entrance into Heaven or the unrepentant sinner’s descent into Hell. I’m often amazed by the lengths to which our penal system will go to insure that the death of a condemned prisoner will be 100% painless. There is no thought of eternity; most criminals likely die unrepentant and lost, so what good did the painless death do for someone who will spend eternity in Hell? The irony is incredible and horrifying. If the death were to be by something a bit more fear-inspiring (for example, hanging), perhaps a death-row inmate would have more cause to consider death and eternity so that he could come to repentance and salvation.
Report comment to moderator
A worthwhile book from a Christian perspective is Ron Dunn’s Will God Heal Me? Faith in the Midst of Suffering.
In one chapter, he recounts the story of a lady with cancer (I think it was cancer) for whom the doctors could not offer hope. She had been surrounded by crowds of fellow believers for weeks, all of them earnestly praying for miraculous healing. When God did not act according to their requests, the crowds began to thin. Finally, a pastor called on her. “Are you here to pray for me?” she asked. “No, I’m here to help you get ready to die,” he replied. “Oh, good,” she said.
Many Christians, myself included, have fallen into the trap of thinking that faith demands we always entreat God for healing. If He doesn’t, then we make it about us by deciding there was something wrong with our prayers, and meanwhile we back off on love and support for the dying person. It takes a courageous person to stand against the well-intentioned tide and help the friend prepare for death, for he will often be attacked by family members who accuse him of robbing their loved one of hope.
Perhaps this is one reason why James, in his epistle, counsels sick people to call for the elders of the church. In this plurality of wisdom of godly men, there is hopefully some discernment regarding the time to pray for healing, and the time to prepare the person for the gates of glory. Notice too that the instruction is for the sick person to make the request for the elders, not for the family or friends to do so. How many dying saints have been denied the true needs of their hearts by those who have started looking at them more as a project than a person?
Report comment to moderator
LL Mac- Very well said. You have written much of what I myself would have said.
It seems as if there is a growing movement regarding life and death choices. This movement seems to favor the “right to die” idea. While it paints the idea of fighting for life as somewhat sad and pointless. Costs and pain and suffering all get pointed out and talked about. But as many other posts have pointed out it really comes down to a personal choice, if you are able to make that choice.
My sister and I had to make this choice for our mother five years ago. She became very ill and sipped into a coma. All of her doctors told us to pull the plug, that she was a vegetable and would never recover. My sister and I rejected the idea. This was our mother and we could not give up on her, ever. We chose to move her to a different hospital and the doctors there worked with us to give her the best treatment they could. She began to improve and recovered fully and after many months she came home. It was during her recovery time that she accepted Christ. She only lived for three months after coming home, but what a change we saw! For her the choice was truly life or death. I can not express how thankful we are that we chose to fight for her life, it was not motivated by fear but by love.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve always felt we should maybe ease up just a bit in spending for elderly health care and divert a little to preventive medicine for children.
Who knows, maybe folks would have more kids if vaccines and other preventive meds were a tad less costly?
Report comment to moderator
Tony writes:
Do we really believe that it [death] will lead to a life everlasting?
Sometimes Christians view eternal life as something future that will be granted to them when they get to heaven. However, that is not correct. You have eternal life right now and can, even today, enjoy its reality and hope for the future.
When you became a Christian you asked God for forgiveness for your many sins and he gave you forgiveness and salvation right then. Eternal life is not something you will be given in the future when you get to heaven, provided you live a holy life between now and then. No, you have eternal life right now. Christ said this in John 10:28,29:
“I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand.
He didn’t say, “I will give them eternal life.” He said, “I give them eternal life…” that is, right now. Furthermore, we read in Rom 11:29:
“…for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.”
That means His gift of eternal life won’t be taken back and you cannot lose it. However, that doesn’t mean that you can go out and sin without other consequences. Even though the true Christian cannot lose his salvation, he can lose many blessings and have an absolutely miserable life if he chooses to take a less than serious approach to God’s commands about his subsequent behavior. On the other hand, if he obeys God’s commands he will grow as a Christian and experience many of God’s blessings in this life as well as in heaven.
While it is true that the eternal life you are enjoying right now is not the complete package you will enjoy in heaven, you have substantial benefits today. Then, one day when the difficulties of this earthly life are behind us, you will enjoy your eternal life to its fullest extent.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
I’m going to go along with your hijack, here, and ask you to explain something no one has every been able to explain to me without violating the strictures of the question:
Tommy asks God for forgivenes for his many sins and receives forgiveness and salvation right then. Tommy is completely sincere at the time, means every word of it, and is a true Christian. Later, Tommy decides that Christianity is false and makes the statement that he utterly and uncategorically rejects everything he formerly believed, that he wants no part of it, and that he hates God. Tommy dies. If Tommy goes to heaven because he was granted the gift of eternal life, he’s going to be miserable because he truly hates God, and heaven is a place where sorrow does not exist. If Tommy goes to hell, he has lost his gift of eternal life, which you say can’t happen. What gives?
No one, but no one, had better give the answer “Well, he wasn’t saved in the first place,” because that is patently false on the face of the facts.
Report comment to moderator
Tony writes:
Do we believe Christ pierced the dark veil, so that death will have no sting?
The sting spoken of here is the sting of eternal death. For the Christian that is definitely gone. As Christians we should not fear the hereafter because we know the good that is coming. However, the sting of earthly pain and the fear of it remains to some extent. We fear the process of dying, not the dying itself.
Yet even here, God is gracious. In Vietnam I was once involved in the rescue of a fellow crewman from a burning helicopter. I had thrown my rifle down next to the wreckage as we tried to get the man out. Never once did it cross my mind that there might be an explosion. My thoughts were that we just had to get him out before the flames reached him. We were successful. After getting him out and some distance away, I remembered that I had left my rifle and I turned around to go back and retrieve it. I took about two steps back towards the wreckage and the whole chopper loaded with rockets, mini-gun ammo and fuel exploded. The man next to me went down with a broken leg from the shrapnel. Only then did it occur to me that there might be an explosion.
Afterwards I was asked, “Didn’t you hear the mini-gun rounds cooking off during the actual rescue?” No, I never heard them. My explanation for all this is that God was in control of both my hearing and my mind so that I was able to function without panic during the whole process.
He is gracious and gives us whatever we need to face any situation, be it our old-age death bed or something in between. The sting is either gone completely or reduced to what we can bear—praise the Lord! Read Fox’s Book of Christian Martyrs for further evidence.
Report comment to moderator
Jonny (#13) asks about an apparent Christian who later denies the faith. But he structures the question to conform only to his apparently omniscient version of the supposed “facts.”
No one, but no one, had better give the answer “Well, he wasn’t saved in the first place,” because that is patently false on the face of the facts.
I cannot answer such a question to your satisfaction Jonny, because it seems that you have already closed your mind to one of the plausible answers. Neither you or I truly know the state of your hypothetical Tommy’s heart and soul. Only God knows that and He will answer the question for Tommy on judgment day.
The point of my post #12 was not directed towards non-Christians (presumably yourself) anyway. It was directed towards Christians who may mistakenly be afraid of death because they are not aware of when their eternal life actually began. If they are truly Christians and are aware of what the Scriptures say, they have no need to fear what comes after their earthly life. That was my point.
If you want to construct a hypothetical that denies the Scriptures, that’s your business, but it needn’t undermine our faith in what Christ says. He is 100% credible.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
As you recognize, the “facts” are hypothetical. Because they are hypothetical, I can in fact be omniscient and know the state of Tommy’s heart and soul. Thus the “plausible” answer to which my mind seems already closed is not plausible at all– it is not even possible because the facts foreclose it. I’m not suggesting anything to undermine your faith– just asking an honest question to which I’ve only ever received prevarication.
Report comment to moderator
Marcy,
Many thanks for what you shared in your post. What a great testimony you and your sister have of your faith and courage! The David Gibbs book I mentioned above has some similar ones and is a great reminder that all of our decisions have to be made in light of eternity, not what is popular or the ‘politically correct’ flavor-of-the-month. He tells of a lady whose father was a very strong and moral man, but did not know Christ as Saviour. The man had told her that if he ever got into a “pull the plug” scenario, that’s what he wanted her to do, but he never put it into writing. Years later, when such a situation actually came up, the doctor told her he had to put her father on a respirator or he would die. She quickly decided to put him on the respirator, knowing that if he died right then he would die lost. That evening, her husband (who was a pastor) went to deal with him about his need of salvation while the man’s daughter prayed (as she had been praying for him for about 40 years) that her dad would accept Christ before he passed away. He did, and also lived for a short time afterward a truly changed and godly man, just as you saw the same change in your mother’s life. GLORY TO GOD! That’s beautiful. I know it was still hard saying good-bye when the time came, but yet there must be great comfort knowing you will see her again in Heaven.
As for the world and its warfare against the truth of scripture, I’m reminded of the warning to “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8) Gibbs gave not just that one, but several examples of families who had been told that their loved one was a vegetable who “couldn’t possibly recover,” and yet they did because the family believed God rather than the doctor. The world’s philosophy is either to pretend there isn’t an eternity to face or to rationalize the unscriptural and Oprah-esque view that somehow “everyone is going to Heaven.” That’s just not what the Bible says:
“The Lord is… longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (II Peter 3:9)
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:16-18)
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)
Report comment to moderator
Jonny,
Have you considered the parable of the sower in Matthew 13:3-8 and explained in Matthew 13:18-23? I believe that will give you the answer you seek about “Tommy.”
“But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.” Matthew 13:20-21
I hope this helps.
Report comment to moderator
Jonny,
Your hypothetical scenario does not seem to take into account the mind-changing aspect of salvation. Salvation is not just the forgiveness of sins and the promise of eternal life, it is making Tommy a new person, affecting his heart, his mind, every aspect of his life.
I am not certain myself that your scenario could not happen, but I think Michael Martin’s point would be that if Tommy truly received salvation, his mind would be renewed by the truth of God’s Word so that he would not in fact later believe it to be false.
Report comment to moderator
LL Mac,
You seem to be suggesting something incongruous with Michael Martin’s original post: “…His gift of eternal life won’t be taken back and you cannot lose it. However, that doesn’t mean that you can go out and sin without other consequences. Even though the true Christian cannot lose his salvation, he can lose many blessings and have an absolutely miserable life if he chooses to take a less than serious approach to God’s commands about his subsequent behavior.”
Pauline,
Am I right to observe that you believe that there are additional conditions to “salvation” beyond “saved by grace through faith” and “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved?” In my scenario, Tommy meets these conditions– Tommy had faith and believed. If these are the keys to salvation, Tommy has it– and Michael tells us that Tommy can’t lose his salvation. Ergo, the scenario I pose.
Report comment to moderator
Jonny,
There are two issues here – what makes one a Christian to begin with, and the question of continuing in the faith.
In your initial post, you say that Tommy sincerely asked God for forgiveness, then that he “is a true Christian” – suggesting that sincerely asking for forgiveness makes one a true Christian. Now you say that “Tommy had faith and believed.” But what did he have faith in? That sincerely asking God for forgiveness would make him a Christian? If that was the extent of his faith, it would not greatly surprise me that he would later turn away from it.
Repentance is an essential element in turning to God. When Michael Martin speaks of being a Christian, I’m sure he means someone who has repented. Your hypothetical scenario doesn’t make it clear that Tommy ever did.
Sincerity is also not what makes someone a Christian. He can sincerely believe what someone told him, that asking for forgiveness makes him a Christian and means he will go to heaven someday, and have no idea what salvation is really about. When he discovers that “asking for forgiveness” doesn’t seem to do for him what it apparently has done for other people, it’s quite natural that he would start questioning whether there is any truth to the whole matter. (I speak from experience here, though my questioning did not lead to denying the faith.)
Then there’s the issue of continuing in faith or turning away. I became a Christian at a church that teach once saved always saved and would say that your hypothetical Tommy was never saved. Their interpretation of the warnings in Hebrews was that they were hypothetical, that if someone could turn away from the faith that he could not return, or else that they were addressed to people who had learned about salvation and been interested but never actually been saved. I don’t claim to know for sure the correct interpretation, but taking the passages at face value, they certainly seem to be speaking to believers of the danger of losing something they have. Jesus says no one can take us out of God’s hand – but does that mean that we can’t take ourselves out?
I don’t know the answer to that. I wouldn’t try to argue definitively one way or the other. But that’s why I say I am not certain your scenario could not happen.
Report comment to moderator
I hear you, Pauline. When I used the terms “asking for forgiveness,” etc., I was simply parroting the terms Michael used to describe the process of salvation so that the hypothetical was on exactly the same terms he described. If you like, let’s assume that Tommy repented in the way that gets him “saved.” My best friend from high school, now a Baptist missionary in Senegal, used to always attempt the “Tommy was never saved” exit and it frustrated me because that approach denies the facts of the hypothetical. I’ve never seen an adequate assessment of this situation by anyone who espouses Michael’s point of view on salvation; everybody moves for the “Oh, he was never saved” exit.
Report comment to moderator
Jonny,
Thank you for writing back. I’ve not disagreed with Michael Martin by quoting Scripture. He makes good sense and truly appears to be trying to help you with your questions. I greatly appreciate his testimony in post #14 and applaud him for his service to our country. Salvation is eternal and irrevocable, but a believer can (and will) still commit sin. And God — like any good and loving Father — will correct and chastise His child.
“For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” Romans 7:14-23
What I believe the parable of the sower says of this situation is that there are a lot of people who profess to be Christians and believe they are saved because they were baptized as babies (clearly not God’s way according to Scripture), because they were raised in a Christian home, or because they can remember “going forward” in church at some point in their lives and have been led to believe that this action of itself saves them. Some call it the doctrine of “easy believe-ism” that leads to a false profession of faith. God knows the heart — regardless of how good the show is in church — and we know from Scripture that “The heart is deceitful above all things…” This may not be the case of your “Tommy” if we know his faith is genuine, but please bear with me a minute longer.
If you’ve never heard or read Ray Comfort’s message “Hell’s Best Kept Secret,” it seems to illustrate the situation of many who profess faith in Christ. Ray Comfort tells the story of a man seated on an airplane who is given a parachute and told it will improve his flight. He put it on, but of course sitting in a seat wearing a parachute is awkward and uncomfortable. People are laughing and poking fun at him, so he soon takes off and throws down the parachute and, as Comfort puts it, “Disillusionment and bitterness fill his heart, because, as far as he is concerned, he was told an outright lie.” Another man is given a parachute, but he knows that at any moment he will have to jump out of the plane at an altitude of 25,000 feet. The discomfort of the parachute and cruel mockery of the other passengers don’t bother him because his heart is full of gratitude that he has a parachute to save him from certain death. The parachute symbolizes salvation, and the difference between the two passengers is why they wanted it.
Jonny, please don’t take this the wrong way, but I truly believe it would help you if you would look to the Bible more and try to depend less on “Saint So-and-So” for doctrine. I know there is a popular denomination that believes it can decide who can or cannot become saints because it considers itself God’s earthly presence — but that simply isn’t true. According to the Bible, all Christians are saints, and we are all equally fallible. One of my own major weaknesses [sigh] is a lack of brevity, which I had hoped to correct by simply quoting Scripture — as in my previous post — and letting it speak for itself. I sincerely hope you can find something in here that will help you. Scenario 1 of a believer who is under conviction and chastisement due to sin in his life, or scenario 2 which is of someone who may have really thought he was saved but was not (and yet there is still hope that he can be).
Report comment to moderator
Jonny (#22):
Simply put, I believe your hypothetical is impossible. It is your insistence that it is possible that brings us to an impasse.
If Tommy was truly saved, which assumption you allow in #22, then his falling away becomes impossible, according to my understanding of Scripture. In addition to the passages I have already mentioned (John 10:28,29; Rom 11:29), the book of Philippians has been a help to me. I say, “a help to me,” because I recognize my own weakness. Just as my own weakness made it impossible for me to save myself in the first place, my human weakness makes it impossible for me to remain in my newly saved state without His continued help. Having seen enough of life, I know that, given the “right” circumstances, it is possible to force another human being to do virtually anything—that is unless they have some strength outside of themselves to help them resist or to bring them relief.
Therefore, God doesn’t save me and then leave me to fend for myself. He promises to never leave me and to help me persevere to the end of this earthly life, no matter what circumstances overtake me. If I didn’t have this assurance, I would always be running scared, knowing that in my own weakness, someday I might encounter a situation that would make me deny Him or turn away in some form of my own despair. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, He will not leave me or forsake me (Ps 23). I am “…confident of this, that He who began a good work in [me] will carry it on to completion until the day of Jesus Christ.” (Phil 1:6) For now, it is “God who works in [me] to will and to act according to His good purpose.” (Phil 2:13)
In this confidence, He tells me to live up to what I have already attained [salvation] (Phil 2:16). He tells me that my citizenship is [now] in heaven. (Phil 2:20) Therefore, I don’t have to be anxious about anything and that His peace will guard my heart and mind in Christ Jesus (Phil 4:4-7).
With these kind of promises, which I know to be true, I do not fear ever falling away or denying the faith. I depend on the power of Almighty God, not myself, for these things. Therefore, Jonny, your hypothetical “fact” of the true Christian falling away is as impossible as the conundrum posed by the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. It just cannot happen.
You say that “…it frustrated me because that approach denies the facts of the hypothetical.” On the other hand, your “facts” are not facts. They are something you made up and which have no part in true Christianity. You are frustrated by a hypothetical and false straw man of your own making.
You point the finger at Christians in your experience because they cannot answer your question on your terms. I tell you that you will NEVER find the answer because you have made it impossible to do so. You might do well to search your own heart and see if you have not made it impossible because you really don’t want an answer.
In the beginning I said that we have reached an impasse. Actually, I believe that the real impasse is one between you and God. He is sovereign and you are not. In the end, your only life saving option is the surrender of your will to His. The stubborn human will just does not want to accept that fact, but that is lay of the land—period.
Report comment to moderator
LL Mac,
No slight intended here, at all, but did you happen to contrast your suggestion to me re. relying on “Saint So-and-So” for doctrine (I’d appreciate a pointer to anywhere in these posts that I’ve made such a reliance) and your suggestion that I check out some dude named Ray Comfort for an analogy of human circumstances from which you suggest a doctrinal conclusion may be derived?
Michael,
Claiming foul on the facts is certainly a useful way to avoid answering the question. I might suggest, however, that the impossibility arises from a misunderstanding of the nature of sin, salvation, and “eternal security.” Just a thought.
For LL Mac’s clarity, I’m not pointing to the following as proof-texts for doctrine. However, consider that the following were regularly and widely read aloud in Churches throughout the Roman Empire DURING THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES and WITHOUT REFUTATION BY ANYONE:
“For the Lord has shown, by His glory, in regard to His elect, that if any one of them sin after a certain day which has been fixed he will not be saved. For the repentance of the righteous have limits. Filled up are the days of repentance to all the saints.” (2:11)
“Listen,” he said: “they whose branches were found withered and moth-eaten are the apostates and traitors of the Church, who have blasphemed the Lord in their sins, and have, moreover, been ashamed of the name of the Lord by which they were called.” (2:41)
The Shepherd of Hermas
“. . . for the whole time of your faith will profit you nothing, if you are not made perfect in the last time. For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate;” (7:289)
The Didache
For some odd reason, I get more comfort from looking to original sources recording what the Christians believed during the time that the New Testament was being written than by looking to Mr. Comfort for a parachute out of the “dilemma.” Maybe it’s because these early Christians knew the Apostles personally and were simply “holding fast to the traditions they had been taught.”
Cheers, all.
Report comment to moderator
Jonny (#25):
Jonny:“Claiming foul on the facts is certainly a useful way to avoid answering the question. I might suggest, however, that the impossibility arises from a misunderstanding of the nature of sin, salvation, and “eternal security.” Just a thought.”
Michael: There is no avoidance of the question on my part. What I have done is to dissect your original question in #13 to show its carefully contrived nature. In your past experience you have received an answer that you didn’t like and so you redesigned your question so as to deliberately preclude that answer:
“No one, but no one, had better give the answer “Well, he wasn’t saved in the first place,” because that is patently false on the face of the facts.”
But whose “facts” are we talking about here? They are just the carefully structured, hypothetical framework of your question, which you then presume to label as “facts.” That is as much nonsense as your later assertion in #16 that you are, “…just asking an honest question to which I’ve only ever received prevarication.”
Frankly, I don’t think you are as “honest” or as objective (a better word) as you think you are.
Jonny: “I’m not pointing to the following as proof-texts for doctrine. However, consider that the following were regularly and widely read aloud in Churches throughout the Roman Empire DURING THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES and WITHOUT REFUTATION BY ANYONE:”
Michael: You then proceed to quote from “The Shepherd of Hermas” and “The Didache” in an attempt to claim that the early church unanimously accepted the idea that a Christian could lose his salvation. This idea was “widely read aloud” in the churches and not refuted by anyone you say. That is utter nonsense!
There was considerable disagreement from the very beginning about these sources, not only as to their content, but even about their authorship. They were ultimately rejected as canonical for many good reasons. Even today we do not know who wrote them or when they were written, but we do know that they sparked considerable disagreement in the church from the very beginning. See Wikipedia and associated references for a full discussion.
Jonny, you seem to be fleeing from an answer that you don’t want to hear. You do so, first by constructing a question that precludes the answer. Then you attempt to take refuge in very dubious sources. These stratagems have serious defects, which should be obvious by now.
Furthermore, it is telling that you have not even attempted to address any of the Scriptures that I have offered as support for the “perseverance of the saints” position (i.e., “once saved, always saved”). Remember too, that we are not just discussing abstract doctrine here. In this uncertain and death filled world, we are discussing real reasons why Christians should be confident in their Christ centered faith. All His promises are true, and thankfully He holds us in His strong hand FOREVER. For all time, the sting of death has been overcome for all who believe and trust in Him.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
I would be grateful if you would kindly enlighten me with references to original sources that demonstrate your statement: “This idea was “widely read aloud” in the churches and not refuted by anyone you say. That is utter nonsense!” BTW, please note that I did not say at all that any “idea” was read aloud but that the texts themselves were so read. I did, however, intend to state explicitly (and failed) that the ideas expressed in the quoted portions of the texts were not refuted in the Church during the time of the Apostles or for a long time thereafter (unsure whether this is coterminous with what you term “from the very beginning”).
Jonny
Report comment to moderator
Jonny,
I have already stated the references. Go to Wikipedia (“The Shepherd of Hermas” and “Didache”) and read for yourself.
I do not doubt that these sources were read in certain segments of the church for a period of time, but your implication in #25 that they were received throughout the church without refutation is demonstrably false. They may have been accepted in certain quarters without question, but in other quarters they were obviously resisted, so much so in fact, that the whole church eventually repudiated them as having any claim to canonical status.
To make a present day comparison, they would be like the works of many contemporary biblical commentators, containing truth and perhaps some error too. They are interesting and often helpful reads, but certainly not the inerrant truth we demand of the actual Scriptures; this is something which only God can give. Furthermore some of these ancient sources (not necessarily Hermas and Didache were deemed to be not only controversial or mistaken but actually heretical. In one way or another they pass away with time. Only the Scriptures remain as tried and true. It is a mistake to go back and resurrect these dead sources and base your beliefs on them. They “died” for good reasons. In matters of faith you are on dangerous ground when you desert the Scriptures in favor of other dubious sources.
Report comment to moderator
Jonny’s request: “I would be grateful if you would kindly enlighten me with references to original sources”
Michael’s response “Go to Wikipedia . . .”
Jonny’s statement: “I’m not pointing to the following as proof-texts for doctrine.”
Michael’s claim (ignoring the rather humorous referential pronoun issues): “Only the Scriptures remain as tried and true. It is a mistake to go back and resurrect these dead sources and base your beliefs on them. They “died” for good reasons. In matters of faith you are on dangerous ground when you desert the Scriptures in favor of other dubious sources.”
Michael- I see that I must agree with you on one point that you made earlier: we are at an impasse. You have cobbled together a doctrine of “eternal security” from selected verses of Scripture and conveyed it as truth. I have shown from original sources that, from the very time of the Apostles, the Church, at a bare minimum, did not unilaterally accept this doctrine of “eternal security” that you state as truth. To no avail, I have given you ample opportunity to demonstrate from original sources that persons within the Church at this time objected to views contary to that of “eternal security.” Further, to avoid coming to grips with the natural consequences of the views you espouse, you persist in dismissing as “unreal” the facts I posited with respect to a person who, once saved, rejects God. Thus, we have an impasse.
Cheers– and a great weekend to all.
Jonny
Report comment to moderator
Jonny (#29):
Having returned from the weekend, I find your present post with a rather strange take on our previous exchanges. It is sort of like the presidential debates with the loser (you) taking a path of obfuscation in order to make his own empty claim of victory. I’m sure it makes you feel better, but a sugar-pill placebo would do you just as well.
Your post is an empty, face-saving attempt to salvage the nonsensical statement you made (and even capitalized for emphasis) in #25 that the sentiments expressed by “The Shepherd of Hermas” and the “Didache” were read and accepted throughout the early Christian church “WITHOUT REFUTATION BY ANYONE.” That is absolutely false on its face, as a cursory examination of each of those sources in Wikipedia clearly shows. Those sources were disputed from the very beginning, i.e., from the day they were written.
In #27 you asked for original sources when I had already told you my sources in #26 (“See Wikipedia and associated references for a full discussion.”) Apparently your reading of #26 was careless and cursory. You should also note that each of the Wikipedia articles concludes with sections entitled References, Publications, and External Links. These sections include scores of original sources that support the main points of the articles, including the main point that I am referring to: i.e., “The Shepherd of Hermas” and the “Didache” were NOT widely accepted in the early church. Hence, your claim that they were accepted WITHOUT REFUTATION, is bogus on its face. Their argument against the truth of eternal security was also refuted by those who vigorously argued for eternal security.
In that regard, your statement that I have “cobbled together” a doctrine of eternal security and presented it as truth is nothing but empty rhetoric. You have not addressed a single one of the genuine Scriptures I referred to, or supplied, on your part, any countervailing Scriptures. All you have done is to supply a couple of references to sources that were refuted and largely forgotten centuries ago.
These sources are as empty of credible substance as your original hypothetical “Tommy” story in #13. As I said before, the “facts” you presented in that made up story are only “facts” in your own imagination. Things that you make up are not “facts” merely because you say so Jonny.
When you can present a credible argument based on real Scripture we may be able to get around the impasse of your blindness and obfuscations, but not before.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
You’re a very good debater, and I have enjoyed your comments and agree that Jonny is not playing “fair” in this debate.
However, I think that even you will agree that the doctrine of “once saved, always saved” (or Eternal Security) is not accepted by all of the Church now, and that there are some really good arguments against it (right from Scripture.)
I am not sure where I fall on the issue. For every verse that seems to suggest eternal security, there is at least one verse that seems to suggest that one can lose one’s salvation.
Certainly, I don’t think that we can go through life worrying that every little sin (after salvation) is going to cause us to lose eternal life. But, the Bible — taken at face value — isn’t as clear on this as many would have us believe. There are many Scriptures which say that one must guard one’s faith and stay firm to the end of the race.
What say you to those Scriptures?
Report comment to moderator
TRS (#31),
Yes, like you, I believe it is a fact that there is no dominant consensus among Christians on this subject. I doubt that there has ever been an accurate survey to determine the relative strength of each side, but my belief is that the “eternal security” faction is probably in the minority, but by how much I do not know.
My argument with Jonny concentrates on his evidence and the manner in which he presents his case. I don’t think either is very good. There are many better arguments that he could use and which I would have a much harder time countering. However, he has chosen what he has chosen and so I respond accordingly.
Yet, for me this is not just a debate I’m trying to win for the sake of an ego scorecard. Mostly, I do not want my fellow Christians to suffer under the fear of doubting the security of their own salvation. So when the doubters arise, I feel obligated to respond, either gently or aggressively, depending on how I read the opposition.
This is an issue that I have grappled with for a long time. During my approximate 50 years as a Christian I have gradually moved into the “eternal security” camp. I believe it is because I have gradually matured in my faith and have come to know my God far better than in my earlier days. I have far more faith in Him and less in myself as the years go by. Along those lines, in post #24 I tried to present a brief Scriptural case for my personal confidence in Him.
As for the other Scriptures you allude to, I would divide those into two groups. There are those which give general admonitions to persevere in obedience to the faith. Then there are a very few which use language such as “fall away” and which present a much more tentative case.
In regard to the first group, I believe that they are either encouragements or rebukes designed to promote obedience. They are much like what a parent tells a difficult child. The parent corrects and sometimes punishes, but never threatens total rejection. In fact he/she goes out of their way to reassure the child on that count. God does the same with us.
The second and much smaller group, I sometimes still have trouble with. Take Heb 6:4-6, for example. This passage, taken by itself, can be argued either way quite effectively. However, Scripture should never be taken in isolation. The Bible is one book from one God, who is consistent with Himself, and all of it should be taken together. So, my personal take is that the weight of passages which unequivocally support “eternal security” far exceeds those that can be taken either way. Thus, for the sake of consistency, one is compelled to interpret ambiguous passages in the “eternal security” mode.
Furthermore, I don’t know of any Scriptures, which unequivocally support the idea that you can lose your salvation. At best, as I said before, those few ambiguous passages are all capable of being interpreted either way.
One last point. I frankly admit that I much prefer to believe in “eternal security” than to doubt it. I also acknowledge that this undoubtedly skews my objectivity on the subject. However, I view this no differently than a child having faith and loyalty in his loving father. We are told to have faith even to the point that we are warned that God is not pleased with us otherwise. It is also sort of like our judicial concept of “innocent until proven guilty.” I believe in “eternal security” until by Scripture, it is unequivocally proven otherwise. This is an integral part of my faith that brings me much confidence, joy, and comfort. I will not, I cannot, give it up easily.
This brings me back to the starting point of this thread: “When Christians Fear Death.” There are two aspects of death that most of us have a tendency to fear: the process of dying and what comes afterwards. Given all the assurances of Scripture, there is no need to harbor fear of either.
Report comment to moderator
Well said, Michael.
Report comment to moderator
Ahh . . . TRS cites to the well-known principle of debating in which one may not present another with a factual situation with which the other is not prepared to deal, otherwise known as “fairness.” I apologize for being unfair. I do appreciate great debaters, such as Barack Obama, but for their ability to avoid grappling with questions rather than for their skill in resolving the issue with which they are presented. So, I certainly give a nod to Michael for his debate skills and, at the same time, sincerely hope that I will not be seen as “debating” at all.
Those Wiki references are really phenomenal, Michael (and I’ll focus on the Didache for now because I haven’t had time to review the Shepherd sources). Thank you for pointing out your reference to them. Permit me to quote a few:
“Predestinarian teaching of “once saved, always saved” or “the unconditional eternal security of the believer” was not believed by the early Church; it fact, it is repudiated here and elsewhere.”
- Attributed to some source called “The Seraphim Files,” whatever that is???
“As regards the doctrine, polity, usages, and ethics expressed and implied in the Teaching, the reader can judge for himself. The writer is of the opinion that the work represents, on many of these points, only a very small fraction of the Christians during the second century, and that, while it casts some light upon usages of that period, it cannot be regarded as an authoritative witness concerning the universal faith and practice of believers at the date usually assigned to it. The few notices of it, and its early disappearance, confirm this position. The theory of a composite origin also accords with this estimate of the document as a whole.” – Professor M.B. Riddle (1886)
Clement quotes the Didache as scripture. Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1972
- A straight-up footnote direct from Wikipedia
“Because most evangelicals have predispositions against non-canonical writings, the Didache has formerly been found only in academic and liturgical settings. This seems strange to me, as these same evangelicals will rush to the Christian bookstore to buy the latest self-help book, yet who better to give advice on Christian living than first century Christians? These were clearly well-educated people, as they could read and write, close to either Jesus or the Apostles, and had authority to address the churches (otherwise, it wouldn’t have ended up in the Jerusalem Codex or quoted by so many church fathers). . . . On first read, the beauty and spirit of this teaching should be apparent. The Didache is, at the very least, a great Christian work of literary beauty that should be enjoyed by every believer.”
-Jonathan Zdziarski, translator of a new version of The Didache intended for Protestant consumption
First, I do not see “scores” of sources;
Second, the sources cited generally are not original, certainly to the extent they are negative on the acceptability of the Didache in the Early Church;
Third, none of the original sources dates from the time of the Didache or even from centuries thereafter.
Fourth, If Michael is attempting to make the point, as he indicates, that “The Shepherd of Hermas” and the “Didache” were NOT widely accepted in the early Church, he is pointing to some pretty odd sources to accomplish this. I love the Wiki footnote stating that Clement of Rome (whose first letter is widely acknowledged as the author of the earliest authentic Christian writing apart from Scripture and who likely knew the Apostle Peter himself)cited the Didache as Scripture. Clement was widely read in the Early Church as well, although I suppose that Michael will want to debate that, too.
Fifth, even if Michael pointed to a pre-4th century source that disputed the authenticity of the Didache as a whole, he still fails to point to such an original source that disputes the apparent assertion by the Didache of a common Early Christian belief running counter to that of modern believers in “eternal security.”
Report comment to moderator
Regarding the ‘Didache’ – there is NO PROOF that these writings were authored by the 12 apostles. This is very IMPORTANT, keep in mind that nothing is mentioned as to the LORD’s Supper, it is completely avoided – the BODY of CHRIST and His BLOOD, is not there. This would be very crucial to the Apostles, as they knew, by walking with the LORD how important it was, they were there at the Last Supper, they were told by the LORD Jesus Himself how important it was.
A document – ‘Didache’ is named by some ancient writers, however it was lost. In 1875 a manuscript dated 1056 was found in Constantinople
Report comment to moderator
Jonny (#34),
The bottom line is really very simple and doesn’t require a great number of quotes, voluminous sources, or extensive study: “The Shepherd of Hermas” and the“Didache” were controversial from the day they were written and were not widely accepted. They were never included as part of the canon and their content is not authoritative in any way.
This renders your assertion in #25 that they were accepted “without refutation by anyone” as utter nonsense. The same is true of their contents disputing the doctrine of “eternal security.” They held to the view that the Christian could lose his salvation, while many others held to the view of “eternal security.” The division of opinion on that subject remains to this day.
Report comment to moderator
Jonny,
I do not believe OSAS/Eternal Security to be true by Scripture. I certainly don’t understand why quoting the Didache would prove anything. Can you use the Scripture to prove your point?
Report comment to moderator
1. Victoria- I make no claim that the Didache was authored by the 12 Apostles, nor, I think, do the Didache or scholars of the subject. The subtitle is “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” Although I do not make the claim, I don’t think it unreasonable that the Didache may indeed reflect the teaching of the Apostles. After all, the early Church did not have the New Testament qua such and were encouraged to hold fast to the tradition handed to them.
2. Victoria- Please read Chapter 9 of the Didache. I think you will find adequate dwelling on the Eucharist there for your taste. The Eucharistic prayer offered there is a model of the Eucharistic prayers offered in the early Church and is insightful into the actual liturgical worship of the early Church (anyone interested can read Gregory Dix exhaustively on this topic). Here’s a link to a version: http://www.carm.org/misc/didache.htm
3. Victoria- My point to Michael in #13, which got this all going, was simply that OSAS presents some very sticky practical issues– like the person dragged into heaven against his will. Michael treated OSAS so strongly– as if it was the last word– that my #25 post was intended to help Michael simply realize that, at the very least, documents revered in the early Church (enough to be read during its liturgical worship) reflect a belief contrary to OSAS. Given modern “Christianity’s” love of proof texting the he** out of the Bible and still coming up with a billion different and often contradictory interpretations, I’m not sure “using” Scripture to prove a point is really going to accomplish much.
5. Michael- Please note that my post in #25 does not claim that the Didache and Shepherd have never been refuted. It does say that the particular quotes were not refuted by anyone. My style was admittedly poor in #25, but I did make this clear in #27– “I did, however, intend to state explicitly (and failed) that the ideas expressed in the quoted portions of the texts were not refuted in the Church during the time of the Apostles or for a long time thereafter.” Your appeal to simplicity is indeed appealing– but only in the way of a parent’s remonstration to a child– “It’s simple. I said it. Believe it. You don’t need any evidence.” I know that no extant NT canon includes these books, but that doesn’t translate to a refutation of a particular doctrinal principle contained therein. You have yet to show evidence that the apparent non-OSAS beliefs of the early Church (or even part of the early Church) were disputed in any situation contemporaneous (or even near-contemporaneous– within 2 centuries?) to the Apostles’.
6. Michael- I do agree that division of opinion on that subject certainly persists today, but your forceful assertion of OSAS as the seeming “final word” in your first posting (#12) pulled my string (which, admittedly and unfortunately, is not difficult to do).
Cheers.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Just for the record, please note that I am not “using” the Didache to proof-text the verity of a non-OSAS doctrine, either.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
BODY of CHRIST and His BLOOD is not mentioned in the Didache – Christ’s blood and body are of utmost important.
Didache
9:1 And concerning the thanks-giving [Eucharist], give thanks thus: 2 first, concerning the cup: “We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of your son David, which you have made known to us through your son Jesus; to you be the glory forever.”
9:3 And concerning the broken bread: “We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have made known to us through your son Jesus; to you be the glory forever. 4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and gathered together became one, so may your congregation be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom; for yours is the glory and the power, through Jesus Christ, forever.” 5 But let no one eat or drink of your thanks-giving except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord, for the Lord has said, “Do not give that which is holy to the dogs.”
Now we come to Scripture which Jesus makes clear as to the LORD’s Supper.
NOTICE: Christ’s BODY and BLOOD are not mentioned in the Didache, when it clearly is mentioned in the Word of God.
Report comment to moderator
Jonny – 38
You write:.. “Please read Chapter 9 of the Didache. I think you will find adequate dwelling on the Eucharist there for your taste. The Eucharistic prayer offered there is a model of the Eucharistic prayers offered in the early Church and is insightful into the actual liturgical worship of the early Church (anyone interested can read Gregory Dix exhaustively on this topic).”
No Jonny it isn’t adequate, please don’t take it upon yourself to decide what I will believe, it isn’t a matter of “taste” it is either the truth or it isn’t. In this case, what you have stated concerning the LORD’S Supper in the Didache, is not a comparison to the what is in the Word of God.
The Didache was found in Constantinople in 1875, and dated 1056 – this would lead most people to believe that it was not accurate.
I don’t believe the Apostles would have left out ‘BODY and BLOOD’ from the LORD’S Supper – that in itself is enough evidence to put very little importance upon these writings (Didache) -
Report comment to moderator
Um . . . OK Victoria . . . I guess. . .
Not sure where you’re wanting to take this. Just did a quick check on the Book of Jude– no reference at all in there to body or blood. Wait one moment while I tear the pages out of my Bible and drop them in the shredder. Ahhhh . . . I think I do, in fact, feel better now.
Far be it from me to ever take it upon myself to decide what anyone will believe. You (and anyone else) are quite welcome to use whatever belief measuring stick floats your boat with nary a mental arm-twist from me.
Cheers.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
Jonny
Before you get to excited over your shredder,( rather childish I might add.) Take a look at Matthew 26, then if you haven’t shredded the Word of God compeltely check out:
1 Corinthians 11
Mark 14
Report comment to moderator
Jonny
Isn’t that brilliant, you can’t find it in Jude so you become the “shredder” – mocking what isn’t in Jude, as if it should be, by your reasoning, if that’s a word to be used in what you just posted.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria et al.,
Forgive me for the lack of charity evident in my last post. I literally could not understand at all where you were headed with your line of posts. Rather than kindly asking you for clarification, I resorted to sarcasm and fell into sin. Forgive me.
Last night, as I wound down my evening and picked up a book to read, I was startled, and then convicted, as I read the following words:
“Since the mind fears uncertainty, it is natural that, at this level, religion is used as a means of gaining certainty in an uncertain universe, as well as allowing some people to impose their own wants and desires on others in the name of their deity. If those with power label this certainty as “faith,” they may think they have achieved their goal. However, this is not the case. Faith does not exist in the mind. It exists in the heart . . . . In its fallen state, the best the mind can offer by way of faith is simply a strongly held opinion. “Strongly held opinion” describes prejudice, not faith.
We cannot make an opinion . . . sacrosanct by labeling it “faith” and then behaving for all the world as if it could not be challenged. To do so is to belittle genuine faith– which comes not as a result of thinking but as a result of trusting God– and to place our needs as the driving force of the universe. If we need to be certain about anything, let it not be about our own fears and desires. If we are busy defending God, we can be fairly sure we are stuck in our minds. In the domain of the heart, truth never needs a defense.
The desire to be certain manifests itself in another, more perverse and dangerous quality: the need to be right . . . . If I can subscribe to a religious tradition that is right, my own personal shortcomings (together with my fears and insecurities) seem less important, and I can pretend to exist at a level of certainty which normal reality denies me.
In order to be right about anything, the mind has the need to find someone or something that is wrong. In a sense, the mind is always looking for an enemy (the person who is “wrong”), since without an enemy, the mind is not quite sure of its identity. When it has an enemy, it is able to be more confident about itself.
Unfortuantely, being right is not what people really need, even though a great deal of their lives may be taken up in its pursuit. Defense of the ego is almost always a matter of trying to be right. Interestingly enough, Jesus never once suggested to His disciples that they be right. What He did demand is that they be righteous. In listening to His words, we find that we spend almost all our energy in the wrong diretion, since we generally pursue being right with every ounce of our being, but leave being good to the weak and the naive.”
My apologies for the long quote, but this was an arrow to my heart last night. Michael, Victoria, and other faithful Woodlief readers and commentators– please forgive me for wasting so much of my energy (and yours) in the pursuit of being right, rather than being righteous.
A wise and holy man once said “the silence of the lips, the closing of the eyes, and the deafness of the ears are for beginners in the spiritual life the quick way to acquire virtue.” With those words, I’m going to sign off from trying to be right, here, and, once again, try to engage in the pursuit of being righteous.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
Jonny (#45),
Those are good words for us all Jonny.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!