Could be this is Quote Day at BibChr, but that's fine.
Squishy universalist wannabes try to crowbar impenitent unbelievers into a Heaven they would hate with all their beings by fiddling with passages like (of all things) John 14:6. "Through Me," Jesus says. "Ah yes," they say; "not through faith in Him, but through Him, thought His saving work."
After this by the estimable Kevin DeYoung, whatever ground they had for that pathetic dodge is gone, long gone.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I would say that people who translate this text should go read Jesus's words about how the Pharisees mishandled the law by adding to it (and thus changing its meaning). This, in particular, sticks out in my mind:
"'You have heard that it was said, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy." But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.'" (Matthew 5:43-45) The part in caps is actually from the law, but the second part about hating enemies is not. That was a nifty little addition by the scribes and Pharisees.
The same type of thing happens here when we add faith in His work to faith in Him for this part of Scripture. Especially when you consider the context, as DeYoung pointed out so well. This is why we should be reading all of the Bible and studying it diligently. There are so many teachings to lead us astray if we do not know the Word.
There is a thread that runs through unbelief. No one will ever admit they don't believe a part of scripture, but readily argue that "That" really means such and such when the meaning is quite clear.
The theological wrangling these days is a bit like slick Willies "it depends on what your definition of is is".
It really comes down to accept it and trust in God that it is true, that he knows better than me or you, that it means what he says, or make up your own little mini-narrative on what it "really" means.
Or, to mock what an infamous person said recently, "through means through, really?"
People get all upset and point fingers at "sticklers" for the right words,calling them legalistic and such. But how often are words used which now have a different shade of meaning, and you have to know the buzz in order to get why certain words are omitted, or certain words are chosen, and it's done with a smile so even the elect would be deceived, if that were possible.
Universal salvation through Jesus Christ has no biblical basis whatsoever, but it is also incredibly wishy-washy.
When I was a stubborn and proud non-believer, I simply rejected John outright as being the "inauthentic" gospel (God have mercy on my soul). No reinterpreting for me.
Such a position could only be held by those who hold to some kind of genteel semblance of piety; but I'll bet any self-respecting Hindu or Buddhist would find the position incredibly patronizing...unless we sell out completely and go the "one 'god,' many ways" route.
Post a Comment