--------------------
The author makes a superficial attempt to explain his topic, but requires his readers to possess an understanding of terminology not commonly known. Thus it is a basic explanation which requires advanced knowledge. We simply don't understand what profit there is to require the reader to know so much to understand an explanation about elementary things, but this seems to be the author's preferred approach.
The author makes a superficial attempt to explain his topic, but requires his readers to possess an understanding of terminology not commonly known. Thus it is a basic explanation which requires advanced knowledge. We simply don't understand what profit there is to require the reader to know so much to understand an explanation about elementary things, but this seems to be the author's preferred approach.
Most obvious, the title. The author presumes his audience knows what soteriology is, and everything he writes is premised on this. For the benefit of the reader, we will define the word. Soteriology is the study of the various doctrines relating to salvation.
The author approaches this from the Calvinist viewpoint. Calvinism is the collection of doctrines taught by John Calvin 500 years ago, most particularly the idea that God has already chosen everyone who will be saved (predestination).
This knowledge will help the reader to some degree, but as we will note, the author fails to explain a lot of the terminology he uses, as well as the concepts he references. We will insert a double question mark whenever we come across one these instances. There will be a lot of them.
This knowledge will help the reader to some degree, but as we will note, the author fails to explain a lot of the terminology he uses, as well as the concepts he references. We will insert a double question mark whenever we come across one these instances. There will be a lot of them.
In addition, the author doesn't quote a word of Scripture. Not one. How does someone teach the Bible without quoting it?
We must deem this Bad Bible teaching.
We must deem this Bad Bible teaching.
----------------------
The Synod of Dort (??) officially settled the Arminian controversy (??) within the Dutch Reformed churches, (??) but Arminianism (??) itself did not cease to exist, nor did it cease to raise challenges to Christian soteriology. It continues to do so to this day. Arminianism, however, is not the only significant contemporary challenge. In this post, we will look briefly at five additional contemporary challenges to Christian soteriology.
The Synod of Dort (??) officially settled the Arminian controversy (??) within the Dutch Reformed churches, (??) but Arminianism (??) itself did not cease to exist, nor did it cease to raise challenges to Christian soteriology. It continues to do so to this day. Arminianism, however, is not the only significant contemporary challenge. In this post, we will look briefly at five additional contemporary challenges to Christian soteriology.
1. Revisionary Doctrines of Justification
Among the most significant challenges to Christian soteriology are revisionary doctrines of justification. (??) For example, based on their revised understanding of first-century Judaism, proponents of the New Perspective on Paul (??) have (as the name indicates) come to a new understanding of Paul’s doctrine of salvation. N.T. Wright, for example, understands “justification” to be God’s declaration that a person is already in the people of God. (??) There is, however, both a present and a future act of justification. (??) Our future justification is grounded in our faithfulness to the covenant. (??)
Proponents of the Federal Vision (??) have also challenged Christian soteriology through their revisions of the doctrine of justification. Much of their teaching can be traced back to Norman Shepherd, a professor of theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, who defined faith as faithfulness (??) and thereby incorporated a measure of our works (??) into the grounds of justification. (??) The proponents of the Federal Vision have each, in their own ways, combined elements of Shepherd’s doctrine (??) with elements of the New Perspective and, as a result, have undermined the biblical gospel. Thankfully, all the major Reformed denominations have officially rejected these false doctrines.
2. Revisionary Doctrines of God
The effects of revisionary doctrines of God on soteriology may not be as immediately evident as the effects of revisionary doctrines of justification, but they are just as important. Because every biblical doctrine is related to the doctrine of God, when the doctrine of God is revised, every other doctrine is affected. Such revisions are no longer occurring only among theological liberals. (??) Self-professing evangelical (??) and Reformed theologians (??) are also engaged in revising the doctrine of God. Some now describe God as a participant in the flow of time, reacting and adapting to events as they unfold—changing His will, emotions, and intentions from one moment to the next. According to this view, God is not merely depicted as responsive for our understanding (??) but is, in fact, subject to real change.
In short, God is just as mutable as His creatures. The challenge such a revision creates for Christian soteriology is obvious. If God’s will is mutable, then His will for our salvation is mutable. (??) There is no longer any truly stable ground on which to rest our hope. God has promised to save all of those who trust in Christ, but if God changes His mind, how do we know He won’t change His mind about this promise? How do we know His love for us will not change?
3. Revisionary Doctrines of Christ
As with revisionary doctrines of God, revisionary doctrines of Christ present a serious challenge to Christian soteriology. The impact of such revisions should be evident, for the gospel is centered on the person and work of Christ (see 1 Cor. 15:3–8). If we alter our understanding of who Christ is, our understanding of what He has done will inevitably shift as well.
One of the most significant contemporary revisions of Christology appears in the doctrine commonly referred to as the “eternal subordination of the Son.” According to this view, the Son is eternally under the authority of the Father, submitting to Him not only in His incarnate role but in His eternal divine nature. This teaching represents a direct challenge to the orthodox doctrine of Christ and to the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. While proponents claim continuity with the Nicene Creed and figures such as Athanasius, a closer reading of the fourth-century Trinitarian debates shows that such ideas are found not in the writings of Nicene Trinitarians but in the arguments of Arians and semi-Arians (??) —groups that opposed the Creed and the orthodox position it defined.
4. Religious Pluralism
Religious pluralism can be understood either in a descriptive way or in a prescriptive way. In a descriptive sense, it is true that there are a large number of different religions with competing views of God and salvation. Some, however, move from the descriptive to the prescriptive and argue that all religions and all religious claims are equally valid. This prescriptive view is a challenge to Christian soteriology because it is a direct contradiction to the exclusivity of the Christian claim that Jesus is the only way of salvation.
Since the fall, there have been many false religions. Christianity confronts these false religions with the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ. Christians are not to betray their Lord by saying that all these false religions are just different ways to the same God.
5. The Revival of Universalism
Universalism is the idea that, in the end, all human beings (some add all angelic beings as well) will be saved. Universalism has existed in various forms throughout church history and has recently experienced a resurgence in popularity. The challenge it poses to traditional Christian soteriology is evident because if all will ultimately be saved regardless, there is far less incentive to proclaim the gospel. There is simply too much in Scripture regarding the reality of hell and the exclusivity of Christ as the way of salvation to believe a universalist “gospel.” It is simply wishful thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment