Philosophy and Christian Theology (My title)

According to Helmut Thielke, “The present intellectual and spiritual situation is marked by a distinctive dualism” (Evangelical Faith, Vol. I, p.11). This dualist problematic is not, however, a newcomer. It has been with us a long, long time. It is older than my instructors, older also than Thomas and his fellow medievalists, much older therefore also than its reembodiment in the similar mind-set of Protestant scholastic thought during the modern period. It has in fact dogged Western Christianity at almost every step of its nearly two thousand-year history. Thinking in terms of two realms has posed the most “colossal obstacle” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer) to a “unified field of knowledge” (Francis Schaeffer) for Christian scholars in every generation.

The roots of these stubbornly persistent issues are most clearly traceable to the second century. With the emergence of a fourth and fifth generation of Christians, we witness the dramatic transition from the original apostolic proclamation of the gospel to the earliest forms of Christian theologizing. To understand the genius of this early Christian theology we must look at the kind of people engaged in it. The majority were not Christian thinkers of Jewish origin. They were Greco-Roman converts, younger Christians. Moreover, in contrast to medieval theologians who were mostly monks, and modern theologians who are mainly university professors, these early Christian theologians were largely pastors and bishops of local congregations and regional churches. Understandably, therefore, they produced basically a very practical theology, oriented strongly to the mission of the church in a hostile world and to the immediate crisis of faith and life within the Christian community as it evolved from its Hebrew beginnings and moved increasingly outward into the Greco-Roman culture of the empire. Accordingly, the tracts of the early fathers were not only very catechetical and doctrinal but also pointedly apologetic and polemical. For the church and its theologians found themselves headed on a collision course with the prevailing spirits of those times, descendent from various schools of thought in Greek philosophy (Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stocism, Epicureanism – the greatest threat being neo-Platonism, the wellspring of early Gnostic heresies)

Together with the eighteenth century, the second century stands out as perhaps the most decisive turning-point in charting the course of Western Christian theology. It’s thinkers has to wrestle with such questions as these: How should one view the relationship between Christian theology and Greek Philosophy, doing justice to the latter while preserving the integrity of the former? And how is one to negotiate the differences and bridge the gaps between the gospel and pagan ideology? The early fathers had little in the way of clear precedent on which to draw. There were no standing tradition to which they could appeal. They had only the witness of the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament evangelists and, growing out of this, the testimony of the first disciples and early martyrs as this took shape in their own living experience. Not surprisingly, therefore, they offered very diverse and often conflicting answers to the crucial question of the stance Christian theology should take over against Greek philosophy.

On its negative side, the most forcefully stated world-negating answer was formulated by Tertullian (150-225) in his well-known rhetorical question, “What has Jerusalem to do with Athens? – to which the clearly implied response was “Nothing!” Separation, isolation, “get out from among them” – this was his answer. This withdrawal motif took shape in one wing of early Christianity. Recognition of the tremendously seductive powers of surrounding pagan cultures and the comparative weakness of the early church lent to this black-white solution a large measure of plausibility. Of course, it also brought with it clear-cut implications for the theology/philosophy issue. These are discernible by comparing this very negative stance in the later Tertullian during the Montanist stage of his life, with the more accommodating references to Greco-Roman ideas in his earlier career. However attractive Tertullians memorable position and whatever its ong-range impact on Western Christianity, as embodied , for example, in the monastic movement, this was not the worldview which eventually won the day in Christian theology.

The outlook which ultimately triumphed was that developed by another branch of early Christian thinkers led by Justin Martyr (?-165), together with Clement (150-215) and Origen (185-253) of the Alexandrian school. This wing of early Christian theology advocated a more affirmative approach to Greek culture. Seeking accommodation, it developed a complementary model of the relationship between philosophy and theology. As reason is subservient to faith, it was argued, so Greek Philosophy can serve as a preparatory strange in developing a Christian body of truth. Like the proverbial Trojan horse, Christian theology opened its gates to admit and make room for Greek philosophy to play a servant role in the formulation of Christian doctrine. Philosophers were enlisted as “handmaidens” to theologians. So complete was the presumed conquest of theology over philosophy, so fully did some Christians believer they has assimilated into their won theological systems the “natural light” of pagan thinking, that in A.D. 529 the last remaining schools of Greek philosophy were closed.

Increasingly, however, the victor became the victim. The philosopher-servant became the master architect who reconstructed the house of Christian theology. Major Christian thinkers freely adopted Greek forms of thought to shape the content of the Christian faith. The dualist worldview so typical of Hellenist thought was embraced as the basic frame of reference for delineating the contours of Christian theology (note, for example, the antinomy in Augustine between the “City of God” and the “City of the World”). Such dualist-synthesist approaches reflect quite generally the theological models which emerged from the early era of Western Christianity. There was still a large measure of instability and fluidity in understanding the reciprocating relationship between theology and philosophy. The trend, however, was in the direction of viewing the latter as prolegomena to the former. Officially, Greek philosophy had been declared dead. In actuality, however, it was kept alive by the grace of Christian theology. Christian thinkers compromised their biblical distinctiveness by assimilating into their theological structures dualist religious motifs borrowed from the very Greek philosophy which had presumably been vanquished. Thus distortions appeared in Christian theology, in its fundamental starting points as well as in its overall format.

For centuries this accommodation of alien viewpoints, burdened by an irresolvable inner dialect, was able to maintain itself only as an unstable synthesis. It continued to cry aloud for greater internal consistency. For methodologically dualist axioms refuse to yield unifying conclusions. So the search went on for a theory capable of forging a unified totality picture, one capable of incorporating the basic contributions of both Greek philosophy and Christian theology. This ongoing reflection took place, however, without critically reexamining the basic givens as inherited for the past.

In the thirteenth century the historical situation was finally ripe for a new initiative. Greek philosophy in the form of Aristotelian logic, which had managed to survive the “dark ages” largely through the work of Boethius (480-525), experienced a vigorous resurgence, thanks in part to Mohammedan scholarship. Earlier Christian thinkers had relied most heavily on the “vertical”, hierarchial structures of Platonic thought. But now, drawing on the more “horizontal”, cause and effect categories of Aristotelian thought, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) bequeathed to Western Christianity a masterful synthesis. While updating the ancient problematic, he at the same time projected his restatement of it down through the medieval, Reformation, and modern eras, and on into our times. Instead of the biblical teaching that grace renews and restores nature, Thomas, in continuity with many mainline early church fathers, held that grace complements and elevates nature. Thus the directional antithesis between judgment and redemption as taught in Scripture was turned once again into a structural antinomy between rival sectors of reality held together in bipolar tension. The end product was a split-level view of reality, with nature as a lower and grace as a higher order. Nature, despite sin, was viewed as still basically good; but grace was far better. Philosophy, accordingly, was viewed as belonging to the natural realm of reason, and theology to the supernatural realm of faith.

Clearly, however, the desired organic unity of perspective was still not achieved within the structures of the Thomist blueprint of reality. The inherited dualist dialectic was not relieved in any essential way. Thomism offers at best a functional unity embodied in the career of a philosopher/theologian like Thomas himself and in the convergence of both temporal and eternal qualities in the institutional church. As two swords, the swords of earthly and heavenly authority, ultimately come to rest in a single magisterial hand, so also both the knowledge of natural things (philosophy) and of supernatural things (theology), each in its own way, come to be viewed as subordinate to the magisterial authority of the church. Within the arena of Christian scholarship, therefore, philosophy engages in theoretical reflection on natural things. Its norm is natural law. It operates by unaided human reason, which remains basically intact, unaffected by the fall into sin, leaving Thomism with the notion of an “incomplete fall” (Schaeffer) Appeal to revelation is not an essential trait of philosophy. It stakes its claim to credibility on universal laws of logic common to all rational men of goodwill. Thinking out the implications of the classic rational proofs for the existence of God enters significantly into such a pursuit of philosophy. Thus, philosophy, in the form of a natural theology, serves as prolegomena to theology proper, which in turn is viewed as the theoretical contemplation of supernatural truths. Philosophical argumentation lays a rational basis for Christian faith. As such, it also carries with it an apologetic thrust- the rational defense, justification, and vindication of the positive theology which builds on it.

The Thomist worldview was designed to reconcile age-old tensions, including those between theology and philosophy. It did so by undertaking the magnificent yet futile task of seeking to distil a unified perspective on reality from a dualist starting point. (nature/grace) The result was a pseudo-unity which yields little more than a comprehensive yet precarious synthesis of the very bipolar problematic with which it began, held together in a new tension-laden dialectic. The outcome was a no-win situation. Both theology and philosophy proved to be losers. For Thomism undercuts the very possibility of a truly Christian philosophy. Instead it inserts natural theology as a substructure underneath its theological superstructure. Thus it renders impossible an authentically biblical prolegomena. Theology itself also came out a loser. Spiritualized, it drifted off into ethereal realms of beatific vision. Thus it severed itself from meaningful contact with the down-to-earth life of God’s people in his world.

The Reformation marks a new beginning. Its original impetus proved, however, to be rather short-lived. Yet, while it lasted, it offered Western Christian theology its first decisively different approach to the issue at hand since the close of the apostolic era. As an historical point of departure in developing a new paradigm for doing Reformed dogmatics, we shall take up the story of John Calvin in Geneva during the decades straddling the middle of the sixteenth century. [snip] His theology accordingly reflects a more self-conscious and deliberate methodology. It has a more comprehensive, architectonic wholeness to it. His final definitive edition of ~The Institutes~ in 1559, the seasoned end product of about a dozen earlier editions involving successive revisions, augmentations, and refinements on that original “little booklet” of 1536, encapsulates much of the best of Reformation theology. In his work Calvin was reaching back over a thousand years of errant theology to recapture central ideas embedded in the theology of Augustine. He was at the same time drawing anew on the heart of Pauline teaching, and in it the meaning of biblical revelation as a whole.

[snip] As we have seen, the dualist-dialectical synthesis of Thomas became dominant first in the medieval era. It became dominant again in the pseudo-Protestant thought of the early modern period in its reaction to the Counter-Reformation. As a result, much of the heritage regained in the sixteenth century was lost during subsequent centuries. As a result, much of the heritage regained in the sixteenth century was lost during subsequent centuries. Protestant theology came under heavy pressure from a resurgent Thomism. This was also true of theology as carried on in the Reformed wing. It, too, abandoned the newly rediscovered evangelical style of theologizing so characteristic of the work of Luther and Calvin. It opted instead to counteract the reactionary theology of Roman Catholicism with a reactionary theology of its own. As a result, instead of growth, stagnation set in. Even worse, Reformed thinkers reverted to pre-reformational ways of doing theology arising out of Constantinian, Augustinian, and Thomist worldviews. Of these, the nearest at hand and most fully developed was Thomism. Thus, Protestant scholastic thinkers found themselves opposing the older Thomism with a newer Thomism of their own making. In effect, this meant pouring Protestant wine into Roman Catholic bottles. They relied on the overall dualist structures, together with the forms, categories, and concepts of medieval scholastic theology. This led to seemingly endless, spiritually exhausting rounds of running encounters which pit this latter-day scholasticism against an older version of the same. Both sides armed themselves with strikingly similar ammunition. Structurally the arguments and counterarguments were much alike, since both drew heavily on Aristotelian logic.

The great mastermind of the Enlightenment was Immanuel Kant ( 1724-1804). His synthesis was as formative for the modern period as that of Thomas for the medieval era. In him nearly all subsequent philosophy and theology take their point of departure. All of us walk in his shadow. In his ~Critique of Pure Reason~ Kant forged a synthesis between the idealist and the empiricist traditions. In his ~Critique of Practical Reason~ he set out to salvage a place for religion conceived as morality. This dual critique exposes the basic thought structures of the worldview which has shaped the modern mind. Pure reason is conceived of as the realm of hard facts, the phenomena, the empirical data of sense perception, of reason theorizing bound by the ironclad laws of logic and the scientific method. Beyond it lies the realm of noumenal ideas, of religion, ethics, morality, and value judgements. Here we experience God, freedom, and immortality. Such religious ideas are, however, no more than the postulates of autonomous human reason which comment themselves to us as moral imperatives. They have only an “as if” status- we must act as if their validity were firmly established. For the total meaning of life is dependent on human rationality, as Kant explains in his ~Religion within the Bounds of Reason Alone~. Within this universal frame of reference the long-standing and persistent dualist scheme emerges anew as the fundamental internal structuring principle for dealing with life. It is merely given a new twist: Kant recasts the nature/grace dualism into the science/morality, fact/value, or nature/freedom dichotomy. Science deals rationally with the firm facts of reality. Theology belongs to the religious domain where men contemplate sacred things, act morally, and make value judgments. Theology, therefore, can no longer be regarded as a science. Perhaps at best it is an “art.” In the realm of science “what is” is all that matters; in morality only the “why” and the “whereunto” count. The sciences, including philosophy, deal with hard facts in a value-free way. Theology, on the other hand, has no firm factual basis nor a rational method, but is limited to making moral value judgments. It operates not by (pure) reason, but by moral intuition. Thus in one fell swoop Kant, while drawing on more than a millennium of Western Christian theology, radically overthrew it. He exploded the idea of natural theology, of philosophy providing a rational foundation for theology, of faith supported by reason, and of reason prolegomena as introduction to dogmatics. In the process Kant swept aside and thoroughly discredited the classic rational proofs for the existence of God as philosophical underpinnings for Christian theology.

Thus traditional theology came to be divorced from all other branches of scholarship, including philosophy. It was left to stand alone as a house without foundations. Underneath were only the shifting sands of reason sublimated into moral ideals.

With Kant as grandfather of the modern mind, Daniel Schleiermacher (1768-1834) then follows as the undisputed father of modern theology. His great achievement lies in this, that he adapted Kant’s philosophical vision to theology. It is no exaggeration to say that “the entire nineteenth century belongs to Schleiermacher” (Karl Barth). After Kant, modern theology was destined never to be the same again. He had demolished the long-standing rational arguments on which theology had traditionally rested its case. How then could theology still be rescued? That was the Herculean challenge to which Schleiermacher addressed himself. What new substructure could be laid as a prolegomenal base of support for a systematic exposition of the Christian faith?

Schleiermacher attacked this problem by accepting the Kantian conclusion that the objects of religious belief have no “objective” status. They are postulates of the human mind. Christian doctrine must therefore rest on some “subjective” basis. The idea of Gefuhl (feelings) filled this need. It became the hermeneutic key to doing theology- “feeling” in the sense of “pious self-consciousness,” finite man’s “feeling of absolute dependence” on Another who is infinite. According to Schleiermacher, this deep-seated religious intuition is a universal phenomenon. All men participate in a common quest after God, to which each community bequeaths its own unique spiritual experiences. Christianity, however, represents the highest stage in the development of mankind’s ethical aspirations. As such it merits the allegiance of all rational moral people. Accordingly, he interpreted the Old Testament as the record of Israel’s communion with Yahweh, and the New Testament as eulogies on Jesus by his earliest disciples. Along these lines Schleiermacher developed a reconstructed apology for Christianity as reflected in his well-known fervent appeal to the people of his age, his ~On Religon: Discourse to its Cultured Despisers.~

Schleiermacher believed that he had offered new grounds on which to construct a Christian theology. His approach was, however, just as man-centered and subjectivist as Kant’s. True to Kant, however, Schlieiermacher refused to justify it on the basis of rational argumentation. He appealed rather to the phenomena of religious experience. The result was Christian faith rooted in finely attuned spiritual feeling. The task of theology is to offer a systematic exposition of this universal Gefuhl. Its base of support is the scientific study of the phenomena of human religions, which serves than as the prolegomena for a study of the Christian religion.

Against this background it is not difficult to understand why around 1920 the newly emergent theology of Karl Barth (1886-1968) fell like a bomb into the playground of the theologians. [snip] As an alternative to both Thomism and liberalism he appealed to the ideas of the Reformation, seeking to update them for our times by offering what he regarded as a twentieth-century reinterpretation of Calvin’s theology. [snip] Structurally Barth held that both are guilty of the same heresy. Both accept some form of philosophical base for Christian doctrine- whether that be reason or feeling. Both are alike unacceptable. [snip] Their common error, Barth holds, lies therefore in their false notion of the possibility of providing some sort of prolegomena as a substructure for Christian dogmatics. At bottom, both mistakenly embrace some notion of a natural or general revelation. [snip] In his attempt to turn the tide Barth made a radical switch to the “other side.” Rejecting all immanentist approaches to theology, he allows the full emphasis to fall on the absolute transcendence of God. God is the “wholly Other.” [snip] To clear the decks of the old problematics he swept overboard the historic Christian doctrine of general revelation. [snip] Thus, despite his radical critique of earlier dualist patterns of thought, Barth was unable to escape the trap into which the others had fallen. Like the others, he took up residence in the same split-level house, only he made some major adjustments within it, drastically rearranging the furniture and altering its flow of traffic.

Current trends do not differ fundamentally from past thinking on this issue. Christian theology continues to reflect a persistent inability or unwillingness to break with the established pattern of the two factor perspective. [snip] The result is a waffling concept of normativity which bounces back and forth between divine revelation and human response. Instead of pushing the norm up into heaven or pulling it down to earth, the norm gets suspended tenuously along an indefinable high-tension line between this dual polarity. The result is complexity compounded: instead of locating the pivotal point in one or the other of these two ~relata~, God or man, laborious efforts are expended to locate the focal point in an ambivalent ~relatio~ concept. [snip] Instead of maintaining a clearly focused distinction between revelation and response, contemporary theology projects a blurred image of the two poles. [snip] Caught in the pressure cooker between this “down-draft” and “up-draft”, contemporary theology seeks shelter in some indefinable center. The gravitational center is therefore shifting steadily from “above” to “below” to “up ahead”, from the God-pole to the man-pole to a future pole, from divine transcendence to human immanence to eschatological self-trancendence, from faith to love to hope. In it all, however, there is little looking back to an original and abiding reality behind the resurrection, the cross, and the fall. Creation gets absorbed into the process of salvation history. Biblical witness to the creation order is bypassed in favor of existentialist views of reality. The results are upon us. For when creational revelation gets eclipsed, the meaning of salvation here and now and of the ultimate re-creation of all things also gets eclipsed. [The] intent and purpose [should be] to explicate the meaning-full-ness of the Word of God as the pivotal point, the normative boundary and bridge between the revealing God and his responding creatures.

Dualisms take place within creation, not between the Creator and the creation. Yet, not every historical instance of over-againstness of a duality or couplet, should be construed as a dichotomy. Speaking of the differences between, say, male and female, Jew and Gentile, East and West as dualisms only blurs the picture.

Clarity demands, therefore, that we recognize a real antinomy at work within the world which may also not be called dualism. Such is the case with the biblical idea of antithesis. Think of “seed of the woman” and “the seed of the serpent” (Genesis 3). Recall the words of Moses: “I hold up before you this day blessing and cursing, the way of death and the way of life- therefore, choose life” (Dueteronomy 30:15,19). Recall Joshua’s parting message: “Choose you this day whom you will serve- the gods of your forefathers or Yahweh” (Joshua 24:14-15). Recall Elijah’s challenge to Israel: “How long will you go halting between tow positions; if God be God, serve him; if Baal, then serve him” (1Kings 18:20). Think, too, of the New Testament’s repeated emphasis on the choice between God and Mammon, the “broad way” and the “narrow way.” Christ speaks, furthermore, in word pictures of “wheat” and “tares” growing up side by side in the same field, and of “sheep” and “goats.”

In biblical teaching the antithesis points to a spiritual conflict which cuts across all of life. World history demonstrates this running encounter between two opposing forces- the “kingdom of light” and the “kingdom of darkness.” Both the awesome judgment and the renewing grace of God are big-as-life realities all around us. At heart men are either Christ-believers or disbelievers. Yet the line of the antithesis also cuts through the very life of Christians. The “old man” and “new man” are locked in mortal conflict within our bosoms. Listen to Paul: “The good I would do not, and the evil I would not, that I do. O wretched man that I am!” (Romans 7:15,24). Christians therefore are not strangers to the heart-rending cry for help: “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief” (Mark 9:24).

But again this is not a dualism. For the antithesis represents a spiritual warfare between good and evil which knows no territorial boundaries. It is not geographically, locally, or spatially definable. The enmity between these two hostile forces does not coincide with two parts of reality, as though one sector of life were holy and the other unholy, or one bloc righteous and the other unrighteous. It is a directional antithesis which runs through all the structures of life. Sin is totally pervasive. Grace, too, lays its claim on all reality. The antithesis may therefore not be dualistically misconstrued as though it drives a wedge between soul and body, faith and reason, theology and philosophy, church and world- with the former viewed as good and the latter as evil.

In the beginning God established his thesis for the world- covenant faithfulness and kingdom obedience. After the fall, he reestablished this thesis in Christ. But “the enemy” continues to launch his antithetical counterattacks. Therefore, to set the record straight, we should not label Christian organizations and institutions as “antithetical” or “separate.” The opposite is true. Christian causes stand in principle behind the thesis that Christ is Lord of all. So-called “neutral” organizations and institutions, which are in reality humanist and secular, are in principle “antithetical” and “separate.” For they fail to stand on the side of the biblical thesis. They have in effect separated themselves from the renewed order of reality, namely, that “God is in Christ reconciling all things to himself” (2Corinthians 5:19). So now the basic question we all face is this: Are we for Christ or for some anti-Christ? This thetical/antithetical decision is radical and all-embracing in its impact. But again it is confusing and misleading to call this dualism.

What, then, are we to understand by dualism? If not the Creator/creature distinction, and if not the antithesis, what then? At a deeply religious level dualisms blunt the sharp edge of antithesis. Instead of moving us wholeheartedly in the one spiritual direction or the other, dualism allows for a divided allegiance. Instead of leading to single-mindedness, it draws a line through the world and opts for walking on both sides of it, though with uneven pace. Dualism gives the spiritual antithesis ontological status by defining some parts, aspects, sectors, activities, or realms of life (the ministries of the church) as good and others (politics) as less than good or even evil.

[snip]At bottom, therefore, dualism may be defined as a confusion of structure and direction. It is a view of reality in which two earthly magnitudes are conceived of as standing in opposition to each other, and this opposition (antithesis) is read back ontologically into the very structures of creation. Accordingly, some life-activities and historical structures are regarded as redeemable, others as only remotely redeemable at best. In light of our earlier historical-theological analysis, all this has a ring of long-standing familiarity about it.

In some world religions this dualist conflict between good and evil is projected back on the gods themselves. It assumes the form of an ultimate dualism- as, for example, in Greek mythology with its conflict between Zeus and the Titans; or in the superstitions of many ethnic religions with their belief in hostile and friendly spirits which pervade the world; or in Manichaeism with its view of the good God of the spirit standing over against the evil Demiurge of matter. Within Western Christian theology, too, we encounter hints of such an ultimate dualism, as in Luther’s ~Dues revelatus~ and ~Deus absconditus~. Reformed theology, too, has not always been free of such dualist tendencies.

In dualisms the divine norm is always either kept at a distance, a step removed from everyday living (“upstairs”), or it is identified with some aspect of life (“downstairs”), or it takes the form of a dual normativity which wavers dialectically between the two. Dualism is a deceptive attempt to reject life in the world (in part) while at the same time also accepting it (in part). It tends to break rather than to absorb the tension between the “already” and the “not yet.” Christian faith is often related only extrinsically to scholarship. All such dualisms make it impossible to do justice to the biblical message of creation/fall/redemption as holist realities. For they disrupt the unity of the creation order. They legitimatize the reality of sin in one or another realm of life. They limit the cosmic impact of the biblical message of redemption. They confine Christian witness to only certain limited sectors of life.

Summarizing, we may say that the Creator/creature distinction is an abiding ontic reality. The antithesis stands as a present historical reality. Dualism is, however, a conceptual distortion of reality.

Thank you all for your posts! I’m sorry to take so long to reply, I’ve been out-of-town on a family health emergency. I’ll be joining the discussion on the “Man – The image of God” thread, but to “wrap up” here, I’d like to answer RnMomof7’s question and thought y'all might be interested in the reply:

AG, what do we do with the fact that cult members will tell you the spirit was confirmed their faith?

Assuming that you mean the term “cult” as a pejorative, my council is this: if you have discerned this after praying, meditating and applying all the words of Scriptures contained in Matthew 7:15-23 (amplified by Galatians 5:22-23) and 1 John 4 both to the subject group and to yourself and/or your own group – then you must not listen any further to the subject group and turn away.

Who's spirit is right ?

That question should never be necessary. When you are led of the Spirit (Romans 8) you have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2) and therefore, you immediately know another person who is of the same Mind because you are One in Him (John 17). When you are One and speaking of spiritual matters, there is instant understanding:

They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. – 1 John 4:5-6

Thank you for your reply!

No I mean cult as in cult . I am asking if cult members believe that THEY have the witness of the Spirit do they?

Strictly speaking, the word “cult” does not mean anything bad; the root Latin means care or adoration. In that sense, Christianity is a cult. But today, a common usage of the word is to cast disdain or blacklist a belief system. I believe that is your intent. As such a pejorative, in 70 A.D. Christianity would have been considered a cult and is probably “blacklisted” today in many countries.

IOW, the answer is not a simple yes/no globally applicable to all cults. You would have to name a particular belief system and reveal the adherents and their activities. If you were to do this, then I would be able to research and observe their tenets, members and activities and refer back to Matthew 7:15-23, Galatians 5:22-23 and 1 John 4 to test the spirits, looking for all of these: profession of faith, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control. If any of these fruits of the Spirit were missing, then I would discern the spirit as false and turn away.

I KNOW I am not of the same mind as any cult member. The word of God tells me that. If a member of a cult says they have the witness of the spirit that their belief is true..is it ? Is there more than one truth? As long as the person BELIEVES it is the Spirit of God are they saved?

The answer is already within you in the person of the living Word. For more on this subject of one Truth, please see post 241

WHAT IS A CULT?

The term "cult" is a pejorative label used to describe certain religious groups outside of the mainstream of Western religion. Exactly which groups should be considered cults is a matter of disagreement amongt researchers in the cult phenomena, and considerable confusion exists. However, three definitions dominate the writings of social scientists, Christian counter-cult ministries, and secular anticultists.
Social scientists tend to be the least pejorative in their use of the term. They divide religious groups into three categories: churches, sects, and cults. "Churches" are the large denominations characterized by their inclusive approach to life and their indentification with the prevailing culture. In the United States, the churchly denominations would include such groups as the Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, the American Baptist Church, the United Church of Christ and the Protestant Episcopal Church. Groups that have broken away from the churchly denominations are termed "sects." They tend to follow the denominations in most patterns but are more strict in doctrine and behavioral demands placed upon members and emphasize their separation and distinctiveness from the larger culture (frequently spoken of as a "rejection of worldliness"). Typical sects have disavowed war (Quakers and Mennonites), championed controversial religious experiences (pentecostals), and demanded conformity to detailed codes of dress, personal piety, and moral conduct (the holiness churches). Sects such as the fundamentalist Christian groups have argued for a stringent orthodoxy in the face of the doctrinal latitude allowed in most larger church bodies. More extreme sect bodies have developed patterns and practices which have largely isolated them from even their closest religious neighbors--snake-handling, drinking poison, alternative sexual relationships, unusual forms of dress.

While most sects follow familiar cultural patterns to a large extent "cults" follow an altogether different religious structure, one foreign and alien to the prevalent religious communities. Cults represent a force of religious innovation within a culture. In most cases that innovation comes about by the transplantation of a religion from a different culture by the immigration of some of its members and leaders. Thus during the twentieth century, Hinduism and Buddhism have been transplanted to America. In sociological terms, Hindu and Buddhist groups are, in America, cults. Cults may also come about through religious innovation from within the culture. The Church of Scientology ad the Synanon Church are new religious structures which emerged in American society without any direct foreign antecedents.
When social scientists began their discussion of cults in the 1920s, they were aware of only a few cult groups, well-known groups which they could not fit into their more crucial debates about churches versus sects--theosophy, Christian Science, spiritualism, and the two large Hindu groups: the Vedanta Society and the Self-Realization Fellowship. Elmer Clark's pioneering survey of The Small Sects in America (1949) listed fourteen New Thought bodies and thirteen Esoteric bodies, showing an awareness of some twenty-seven cults (plus a few others such as the black Jews considered in the body of his text)

I believe you visited this site, but here is the URL , where you can also see a list of the most commonly accepted cults

cultwatch

Almo , I have to say you do not hold a Christian view of salvation. Remembering that Satan is the liar and the deceiver and the imitator of God , he is capable of false fruit . Judas preached the gospel and did miracles yet he betrayed Christ. We are not saved by works.

The fact one is lost without the Jesus of the Bible is why churches send out Missionaries..at the following of the command of Christ.

Their is no other name by which one will be saved.

Jesus said I am the way the truth an the light NO MAN COMES TO THE FAHTER BUT BY ME

There are clean living atheists , and Buddhists that do good work , but they are not saved..at least according to the bible I read.

I have a bit of a scriptural teaching for you AG..the bible was written to those that were already saved.The church . Without the illumination of the Holy Spirit it is gibberish to those that are perishing .

You do not seem to want to give a direct answer to my question..(which may be an answer in itself:>)

Can one be saved without a faith in Jesus Christ as their savior?

Believe what you will, RnMomof7, I do not judge you. Instead, I love you unconditionally.

I did not know or judge the status of your salvation ( as you do not know mine). I have no clue as I have never heard you proclaim or deny the gospel

The measure I use is that of scripture "saved by faith in Jesus Christ "and His propitiation for our sins.

The Bible is clear that there is no salvation out side Faith in Jesus Christ , God incarnate crucified , died and buried , risen on the third day

I do believe that Pastor xzins would agree with me on that , as it is in the creed of every church that is Christian in creed.

I also suspect that Pastor xzins would agree that seeing a nice personality or a helpful hand or gifts are not necessarily fruit that is a result of our salvation .

I did lots of good works before I was saved, but I was lost on my ways to hell, until God in His gracious love saved me..in spite of myself.

The problem I see with a totally "non judgmental "approach to other gospels or the spiritual state and need of others is there is no need or zeal to give the gospel ..why bother??? We are to go and tell , that always requires a judgment on who to go to :>)

I also have used your link several times. I will not link it now but "Watchman Fellowship" I think their presentation of individual cults and sects is clearer

I do understand this interpretation of the Great Commission – that all must go and tell and baptize, etc. But for me, declaring Christ is a state of being and He provides the opportunities for personal witness.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Mat 28:19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

AG I did not know that we had a choice in obeying the word of God , and that we could do it our way.

One of the things we used to do with Texas Baptist Men’s Lay Renewal preparation meetings was praying and meditating to discover our gifts of the Spirit. (I Corinthians 12) As a result of that effort I discovered my gift is to encourage other believers; evidently He has given me a reassuring demeanor (LOL!). He routinely puts in a role to encourage believers in their home-going. I am not however gifted for teaching, preaching and evangelizing.

Having the "gift of encouragement " ( not one I find in the Bible as a fruit of the Spirit , but agree that it is a wonderful trait to have, especially for the work of Christians in their ministries) But does not exclude the command of the gospel in the proclaiming the gospel

AG , we do not know each other well . From what I have seen of you it would seem you are a very kind and caring person . But I am very troubled that in all of our exchanges you have yet to proclaim that without faith in Jesus there is no salvation, that is what I would call proclaiming the gospel . Jesus is not a "state " of being. Jesus is God incarnate , that carried my sin and paid the price I could never pay , Jesus clothes the saved in His robe of Righteousness .He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords , my Saviour .

All men need encouragement , but they need Christ more .If we fail to clearly present the gospel , we may be encouraging men to an eternity of the flames of Hell.

No man can say Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirit

Perhaps it is only natural --- certainly Martha and Peter begrudged Mary and John respectively (Luke 10:38-42 and John 21:15-23) --- but truly I do not begrudge you your calling, I would that you would not begrudge me mine.

AG I did not know that we had a choice in obeying the word of God , and that we could do it our way.

RnMomof7, I strongly suspect that you are not doing everything entailed in the Great Commission. If you were, you would have sold every possession and given it to the poor, left family and friend long ago and would be now a missionary in some dark corner of the world – going, telling and baptizing. (Matthew 16:4, 19:21 and Matthew 28:19-20)

Instead, I strongly suspect that you are first a steward in God’s vineyard, caring for the children and others He has put in your care, realizing all the time that they are His and not yours – that you look at every dollar you put in a coke machine as His and not yours, that the shoes on your feet as His and not yours and care for all such things – that you take every opportunity to knock on doors or hand out Bibles or speak to people about Christ. I further strongly suggest that you give personal testimony and joyfully reveal that Christ is the only begotten Son of God, come to us from heaven, suffered and died a propitiation for our sins, raised on the third day and sitting at the right hand of the Father.

RnMomof7, I do all of these things too – but with a few differences according to how my calling has changed over the years. I used to knock on doors, hand out boxes of Gideon’s Bibles (I was Gideon’s Auxiliary). The whole nine yards. But God has a different assignment for me in the twilight of my years. Now I sit at His feet, ingest the living Word, worship Him continually and diligently surrender to His will. To help me love Him all the more, He provides me with the opportunity to love the unlovable, forgive the unforgivable, encourage the inconsolable and declare Him. This is my joyful calling!

As a final point, you keep asking me whether someone can be saved without Christ. If anyone could be good enough to get to heaven, then Christ died for nothing.

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. - Galatians 2:21

On the other hand, God says He will be merciful and compassionate according to His own will. (Romans) Certainly Abraham, Noah, Enoch, David etc. – who all preceded Christ on earth - are saved according to His will. Likewise, if God chooses to save aborted children, young children, severely handicapped people or anyone who has not heard and rejected Christ – who am I to question it?!

Thank you for the discussion, it has been illuminating.

Matthew 16;4 is not applicable in the least.

Indeed. I wrote it down wrong - the cost of discipleship is laid out in Luke 14. Had I included the passages themselves, I would have noticed my error. Sorry about that.

It is also true that the “Great Commission” refers only to Matthew 28:19-20. But my comments to you were related to “everything entailed in the Great Commission” and not the Great Commission alone. In context, here is the Great Commission starting at verse 16 (emphasis mine):

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

Here is what I was trying to point out - what it costs to be a disciple:

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. – Matthew 19:21

And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have [sufficient] to finish [it]? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish [it], all that behold [it] begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.

So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

Salt [is] good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned? It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; [but] men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. – Luke 14:25-35

In my experience, most believers do not walk away from all that is within their area of influence whether it be possessions, family, friends, job or whatever – and go into all nations, baptizing, teaching. Rather, most believers known to me take the attitude of surrender and give up their personal attachments to all other people and possessions and view all of it (children, spouse, home, job, everything) as God’s and themselves as merely stewards working in His vineyard. Within that vineyard, these believers witness not only with their words and deeds but moreover by their very being, magnifying the Light by treating everyone with unconditional love, etc.

Do you believe one can be saved without faith in the Christ of the bible ?

I have already answered this in post 271. But I shall repeat it again for absolute clarity:

If anyone could be good enough to get to heaven, then Christ died for nothing.

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. - Galatians 2:21

For additional clarity, I assert that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Nobody comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6) But getting “through Him” isn’t a simple matter of believing that God is:

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? - James 2:19-20

And it isn’t a simple matter of reciting the right words off a tract or doing the right things. Faith must come from within; the seeker must be born again (John 3), i.e. Christ must “know” the one who receives Him (John 10) – this “knowing” is the indwelling of the Spirit. (Romans 8, I Corinthians 2)

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God…. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit….

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 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. 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.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. – excerpted from John 3

Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. I and [my] Father are one. – John 10:25-30

I have to leave tomorrow for several days again on a family health emergency, but will reply as appropriate as soon as possible.

I am focusing on the command to give the gospel ...period . That is the traditional meaning of the great commission.
I am not dealing with the cost.But with people that are afraid to proclaim it because some may not like to hear it. We have too many ear tickling people that think they are obedient to God but deny Him by their silence

There is a cost to preaching the gospel .Jesus frankly told us we would be hated by men that same way He was . That is why I do not expect, desire or work to have men like me .
So I do not try to post words that will get me the applause of men.

I believe that without believing and trusting the Jesus Christ of the Bible , men are condemned to hell for eternity.

I do not expect men to like to hear that , it is offensive.
But if the gospel given does not offend it is not the gospel. It is a message most do not want to hear. I am not ashamed of the Gospel or to affirm my faith out loud .When is the last time any of us were told it is a hard teaching who can accept it?

Jesus said, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.“ (Jn. 15:18-19).

The cross and faith are offensive because they take meritorious works and send them packing. Repentance and the call to holiness are offensive because man prefers to run from the light. The narrowness of the door is offensive because it sours people on God’s open-mindedness. God’s sovereignty is offensive because humans like to call the shots. No wonder Paul was straight with Timothy from the outset and said, “...join me in suffering for the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:8b). It makes sense now why he said, concerning faithful gospel expression, that “it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him...” (Phil. 1:29). If you are looking for a challenge, join up. Giving the true gospel in its pure form is like feeding liver to a preschooler—no way!

Ellffin

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.