Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Darren F Provine) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: The Uneducated Need Not Apply Message-ID: Date: 25 Oct 90 06:55:27 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 122 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article ("Who's a Christian and who isn't, anyway?"), I offered criteria for distinguishing Real Christians (tm) from UnReal ones, and looked at some of the problems with such criteria. Some of the replies suggest that I was misunderstood, so I will try making a different (though related) point in this article. (I chose the approach I used last time because I was trying to avoid writing an article with a direct reference to the Latter-Day Saints, but (alas!) here we are.) Every so often, we see articles in this group arguing that a certain group is Not Really Christian for some reason or other, for whatever reasons. Recent articles from Robert Firth & Cindy Smith (about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) have been of this genre, and in the past we've had similar articles from Jehovah's Witnesses about the Trinity, and conservatives about JWs, ad nauseum. It occurs to me that the authors of such articles tacitly acknowledge some axioms which have a potentially controversial corollary: intellectual capability is a requirement for salvation. For example, suppose Hepzebar posts an article saying that: a) Throckmorton Heretic believes a doctrine that is false. b) This doctrine can be shown false by arguments from Scripture verses. c) Because this doctrine is false, anyone who believes it is not really a Christian. d) Since Throckmorton is not really a Christian, he isn't really saved. (I have seen such articles from Hepzebars who were Jehovah's Witnesses, conservative mainstream Protestants, and some people I can't really categorise, so this example is hardly hypothetical.) Further, let us suppose that Hepzebar is correct on all points; and that Throckmorton's favorite doctrine really is false, and really can be shown false from Scripture (and, therefore, that Throckmorton's Scripture arguments are flawed). Throckmorton, however, believes his doctrine because he finds the flawed arguments convincing, and lacks the intelligence to recognise the flaws; Hepzebar fails to convince Throckmorton due to his limited intellectual capability. Throckmorton, then: a) has studied the issue in some depth, b) prayerfully and honestly seeks to know God's will, c) does not have an `unrepentant heart', d) recognises Jesus Christ as Lord, e) lives his life as he believes God would have him do, and f) puts his trust for salvation only in Christ's sacrifice. But none of this will help him, and he will be barred from Heaven _only_ because he is not intellectually capable of seeing the strengths and weaknesses in a philosophical argument. Hepzebars usually insist that Incorrect Belief is damning, and use (or try to) arguments that appeal to the intellect -- but they never say that reasoning ability is a component of salvation. (A Jehovah's Witness in talk.religion.misc once posted an article with a subject line that said "Trinity doctrine is false and illogical" -- why the reference to logic, if one's reasoning ability is not important?) At this point, some of the Hepzebars out there are saying `Throckmorton is a logical impossibility -- if he had a right heart, and honest prayer, etc, he would agree with me.' However, they don't say `pray about this issue', they always try to produce logical arguments. Why the constant (ab-)use of logic as a conversion tool unless a person's logical ability is important to salvation? My questions, then, for the Hepzebars (whether they be Witnesses, mainstream Christians, ultra-Protestants, or whatever) who use logic (often badly) in an effort to show other Christians why their beliefs (Transubstantiation, the Trinity, Joseph Smith's Prophethood, Annihilationism, &c) are false, are these: Suppose you are right, and is wrong; if a person who disagrees does so because she fails to see the superiority of your arguments, do you believe that intellectual capabilities are a determining factor of salvation? If not, why is a person who does not agree with you about a non-Christian (and, therefore, unsaved)? As I see it, unless you are willing to agree that philosophical ability is a prerequisite for salvation, then you cannot use beliefs which are determined by argument and evidence to distinguish who is saved and who is not. kilroy@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "The secret of our relationships with one another in the Christian Church, especially when we have our differences, is `Jesus Christ is Lord'. To despise or stand in judgement on a fellow Christian isn't just a breach of fellowship. It is a denial of the Lordship of Jesus. I need to say to myself, who am I, that I should cast myself in the role of another Christian's lord and judge? I must be willing for Jesus Christ to be not only my Lord and Judge, but also my fellow Christians' Lord and Judge.... I must not interfere with Christ's Lordship over other Christians." -- John R W Stott [Few of our posters have put overtly intellectual requirements on salvation. Saying that someone is a Christian is not the same as saying that they are saved. It can be used either institutionally, to say that they belong to a certain body, that they have been baptized, or it can be used as a label for a particular intellectual movement, to say that someone accepts (to greater or lesser extent) a set of beliefs characterized as Christian. Without some definition such as that, we see Christian used to characterize anyone who believes in being nice to people. But I think our readers generally understand the distinction between these sorts of analytical definition and the reality of our relationship to God. The definition I have most commonly heard is that salvation requires having Christ as Lord and Savior. Doctrinal errors can certainly place obstacles in the path of this, by having people misconceive what Christ did for us, or the nature of our relationship with him. But few of our posters have been willing to draw solid doctrinal lines, and say that some particular error makes it completely impossible to be saved. While ETS may control admission to many earthly privileges, I do not expect to be asked to take the Uniform Theological Entrance Examination when I get to the pearly gates. --clh]