# Can you believe this and be a Christian?



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 26, 2004)

What do you think - 

A man says, &quot;mythology&quot; is God's way of speaking to those he has not given the Gospel to. Pagans, Buddhists, etc, if they sincerely pray to &quot;god&quot; (whoever that may be for them) will be heard by God and He will hear them and accept them. When they have dreams, visions, or come up with mythological stories about a divine person, then God accepts that and accepts them.

If someone were to believe something like this, would you say he/she was a Christian or not?

I read an article recently that documents citations about a well known person who said some of these things. I will quote and cite them after. But what would your initial reaction be to this kind of thinking?

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 26, 2004)

That sounds like a variation of &quot;the noble savage&quot; argument. I would say based on the progression of God's wrath described in Romans 1, that mythology, (or the suppression of truth) is a merciful pacifier for those who are parishing. If mercy is a relief of misery, then myth gives the lost something to keep them busy on their blind journey to judgment.

These are just my idlings, I haven't done a major study. &quot;Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.&quot;:tumble:

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by maxdetail]


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Feb 26, 2004)

Does this person actually teach this? Would the term antichrist be appropriate?

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2004)

Christians often believe in some very inconsistent ideas and horrifying doctrines. The essence of the gospel and spiritual regeneration is the only touchstone in my opinion.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 26, 2004)

I know who it is.........

and boy won't people be surprised to hear that he believes this?

It is another gospel!

:shocked2::sad:


----------



## dswatts (Feb 26, 2004)

I agree with Pastor Way....a different gospel. 

Would love to know who this is!!

Grace,
Dwayne


----------



## raderag (Feb 26, 2004)

[quote:1808917e7c][i:1808917e7c]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:1808917e7c]
What do you think - 

A man says, &quot;mythology&quot; is God's way of speaking to those he has not given the Gospel to. Pagans, Buddhists, etc, if they sincerely pray to &quot;god&quot; (whoever that may be for them) will be heard by God and He will hear them and accept them. When they have dreams, visions, or come up with mythological stories about a divine person, then God accepts that and accepts them.

If someone were to believe something like this, would you say he/she was a Christian or not?

I read an article recently that documents citations about a well known person who said some of these things. I will quote and cite them after. But what would your initial reaction be to this kind of thinking?

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by webmaster] [/quote:1808917e7c]

Yes it is wrong.

Who said it?


----------



## brymaes (Feb 26, 2004)

If a person believes that, he is denying the Gospel. Certainly the [i:e143deaaa0]minimum[/i:e143deaaa0] requirements of belief for salvation includes the exclusivity of salvation through Christ alone! The one who propagates such heresy is certainly not saved.

BTW, I also think I know who it is...:flaming:


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 26, 2004)

*No*

But I do believe that those who come up with these are just trying to explain the things of God through a sin filled heart.

emphasis &quot;trying&quot; but failing since only God can enlighten them.

blade


----------



## BrianLanier (Feb 26, 2004)

This sounds like something that Walter Martin has said in one of his apologetics tapes that I listened to years ago. I think that it depends on who said it...i.e. a new christian or a teacher if we are to consider them to be Christian or not. Ultimately, I am not sure what to think.

Also sounds like something I have see documented about Billy Graham...can't remember though.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by BrianLanier]


----------



## smhbbag (Feb 26, 2004)

^my vote goes to billy as well, guess we'll see :flaming:


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 26, 2004)

I know who it is also. The view is generally called Inclusivism, and of course is easily refuted by Romans 10:12-15 (ESV): "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.' But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!'" I had read the article by the well-known person who said these things awhile ago, and I couldn't have been more shocked to hear that he believed it. But I'll refrain from saying it, since I'm assuming Matt wants several people to be able to give their thoughts on the topic before the beans get spilled...

Personally, I think that although it seriously twists the Gospel in a horrific way, people can believe it and still be real Christians as long as they trust in Christ alone for their own salvation. After all, semi-Arminians can still be true Christians as well.

Chris


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Feb 26, 2004)

[quote:d432e2b460][i:d432e2b460]Originally posted by smhbbag[/i:d432e2b460]
^my vote goes to billy as well, guess we'll see :flaming: [/quote:d432e2b460]

Same here. Billy Graham did make a similar remark in the past.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Feb 26, 2004)

[quote:a6bec25b47][i:a6bec25b47]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:a6bec25b47]
Personally, I think that although it seriously twists the Gospel in a horrific way, people can believe it and still be real Christians as long as they trust in Christ alone for their own salvation. After all, semi-Arminians can still be true Christians as well.

Chris [/quote:a6bec25b47]

Being a weak Christian without much study is one thing, but a pastor or sheperd of any flock that teaches this is no Christian, they are certainly a wolf.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 26, 2004)

I think it's Mel Gibson.........


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 26, 2004)

[quote:853db3a86b][i:853db3a86b]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:853db3a86b]
I think it's Mel Gibson......... [/quote:853db3a86b]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 26, 2004)

[quote:b305a9a1f5][i:b305a9a1f5]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:b305a9a1f5]
[quote:b305a9a1f5][i:b305a9a1f5]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:b305a9a1f5]
Personally, I think that although it seriously twists the Gospel in a horrific way, people can believe it and still be real Christians as long as they trust in Christ alone for their own salvation. After all, semi-Arminians can still be true Christians as well.

Chris [/quote:b305a9a1f5]

Being a weak Christian without much study is one thing, but a pastor or sheperd of any flock that teaches this is no Christian, they are certainly a wolf. [/quote:b305a9a1f5]

Are one's responsibilities greatly increased by being a pastor or shepherd? You bet. Is it thus a grave sin to preach that to one's pupils? Absolutely. But as Paul Manata pointed out, salvation is solely dependent upon one's [i:b305a9a1f5]own[/i:b305a9a1f5] personal acceptance of the Cross for themself. [i:b305a9a1f5]Sola fide.[/i:b305a9a1f5]

Chris

P. S. Especially considering who it is, I definitely have to believe that the person being referenced is a Christian himself, despite lapsing into this error.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 26, 2004)

[quote:3f8ee098f1][i:3f8ee098f1]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:3f8ee098f1]
What do you think - 

A man says, &quot;mythology&quot; is God's way of speaking to those he has not given the Gospel to. Pagans, Buddhists, etc, if they sincerely pray to &quot;god&quot; (whoever that may be for them) will be heard by God and He will hear them and accept them. When they have dreams, visions, or come up with mythological stories about a divine person, then God accepts that and accepts them.

If someone were to believe something like this, would you say he/she was a Christian or not?

I read an article recently that documents citations about a well known person who said some of these things. I will quote and cite them after. But what would your initial reaction be to this kind of thinking?

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by webmaster] [/quote:3f8ee098f1]

This is an issue of the doctrine of Scripture. Therefore it is fundamental, even more fundamental than the Trinity, since the Trinity is discerned from the Scriptures. If we say, along with WCF 1 (and every other Protestant confession, including Lutheranism) that the Scriptures and special revelation are necessary to reveal the Redeemer, then we have to say that this doctrine is false, promotes a gospel that is not a gospel at all.

However, having said that, if the person who made the quote actually trusts in the finished work of Christ by grace alone through faith alone, then this person could be a Christian. He is just in error regarding Scripture, and will have to account for his false doctrine to God (a very fearful thing here).


----------



## KayJay (Feb 26, 2004)

would not put it past billy graham....

THE SUSPENSE IS KILLING MEEEE!!!!uzzled:


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 26, 2004)

Hi Kay Jay


----------



## KayJay (Feb 26, 2004)

Hey Blade! :bigsmile:


----------



## turmeric (Feb 26, 2004)

I mentioned this on another thread and got no response - tell me if you think the notion is heretical. I have heard and read of something called &quot;redemptive correlatives&quot; in mythology. The idea seems to be that there are elements to the myth that parallell (in a very distorted way) the Gospel story; when a missionary discovers these he can use them as a beginning much as Paul used the altar to the unknown god in Athens. Many peoples have, in addition to their pantheon, a &quot;high god&quot; who lives in the sky whom they don't know much about. They usually think he went away, or they say they have forgotten what they used to know about him. They probably suppressed it!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 26, 2004)

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 26, 2004)

:spin:


----------



## KayJay (Feb 26, 2004)

Hey Meg,

I think I've heard of the &quot;redemptive correlatives&quot; too...I think...maybe not  tell me if I'm wrong! 

I thought that was something different though than this discussion...the idea of &quot;redemptive correlatives&quot; remind me of how Paul uses language of the &quot;mystery religions&quot; in 1 Corinthians. Of course the mystery religions had no power to save - there were just ideas/language he could use. (HOWEVER - I DON'T think that means Paul was SEEKER-SENSITIVE  )

If I believe in &quot;redemptive correlatives&quot; it doesn't necessarily mean that I believe people can be saved by the &quot;pictures&quot; of Christ's atonement. That's like saying someone could be saved by reading/watching &quot;The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe&quot; without ever hearing the Gospel. 

Do you agree that there is a distinction between a) believing there are redemptive correlatives that perhaps God uses when His elect bring His Gospel to a people - and b) believing that a people who trust in the abstract correlative are saved?

hope that made sense...


----------



## Craig (Feb 26, 2004)

It is possible to be a Christian and believe this theory...is it a true teaching? I find it hard to believe


However...in college, one of the students in my dorm was from Africa...when I say Africa, I'm talking about &quot;primitive&quot; tribe type stuff. His people were evangelized and knew of the gospel because of a Presbyterian bringing them the gospel...but one of their former practices made me wonder if this &quot;inclusivist&quot; position may be plausible.

The tribe would lay their hands on a goat and drive it out of their area. They laid on it all their sins, and drove it out so as to remove their guilt...was this a remnant teaching from the Old Testament? These people may not have even been able to hear that their Messiah had come until 100 years ago, but at least one of their practices pointed to a substitution to take their place.

I don't know of their other practices, and I'm not saying these people were of the faith of Abraham, but it made me think...just like those in the Old Covenant, their faith was in One to come...they just didn't realize Him yet. Remember, those in the old covenant more than likely weren't able to describe God in Trinitarian terms, nor discuss the hypostatic union, etc. But their faith was placed in the revelation given to them by God.


----------



## twogunfighter (Feb 27, 2004)

[quote:6508deb7d1]
However, having said that, if the person who made the quote actually trusts in the finished work of Christ by grace alone through faith alone, then this person could be a Christian. He is just in error regarding Scripture, and will have to account for his false doctrine to God (a very fearful thing here). 
[/quote:6508deb7d1]

Fred, as usual, puts one in the bullseye.


----------



## love2read (Feb 27, 2004)

Well webmaster,

You made me quite curious now.... Can you tell us who it is?!

:bigsmile:


----------



## JonathonHunt (Feb 27, 2004)

Its a crazy theory really isn't it? To think that Almighty God would use crazy myths and fables about debauched 'deity' and absurd legends to save people?

It is an attack on the authority and sufficiency of scripture!


----------



## dswatts (Feb 27, 2004)

waiting patiently for Webmaster to spill the beans! uzzled:

Grace,
Dwayne


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 27, 2004)

Yes, it is CS Lewis.

"all Holy Scripture is in some sense - though not all parts of it in the same sense - the word of God."
Reflections on the Psalms, 19.

"If every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of Lights, then all true and edifying writings, whether in Scripture or not, must in some sense be inspired."
Letters of C. S. Lewis, W. H. Lewis, editor, 1993,479-480.

"[H]ere are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God's secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ's birth may have been in this position."
Mere Christianity, 176-177.

"I think that every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god or to a very imperfectly conceived true God, is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know Him."
Letters of C. S. Lewis, 428.

God sends "good dreams" to all people in the form of mythology....


----------



## Jie-Huli (Feb 27, 2004)

I have no idea who this individual is, but I would have to say I think it is impossible for a true converted Christian to persist in beliefs of this kind.

I know some say that the deciding point is whether the individual himself trusts in Christ completely for his own salvation, and thus he would not be damned for having mistaken ideas about other people being saved in other ways. 

But I do not believe it is possible for someone to truly trust in Christ alone for his salvation while believing that others could be saved without Him. To believe that it is possible for human souls to be saved without faith in Christ (through putting trust in religious myths or whatever) is to have a gravely inadequate understanding of both how lost and wicked the human race is and how exceedingly precious God's grace in Christ Jesus is. At its root I believe such a belief denies the total depravity and undeservedness of the human race (making it impossible to have a true understanding of grace), as well as the truth that human souls are saved not merely for humanistic reasons but that the Son may be glorified in them.

Is it possible for someone to deny the fundamentals of the Gospel as they apply to the world at large and yet believe them to such a firm extent for himself that he could truly trust in Christ alone for his salvation? I do not see how.

This is a very grave heresy indeed. I suppose it is possible for even truly converted people to be influenced by false philosophies for a time, but if he is a true Christian he will certainly repent of such wicked doctrines and will not persist in them.

[Edited on 2-27-2004 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Feb 27, 2004)

[quote:2c12328aab][i:2c12328aab]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:2c12328aab]
Yes, it is CS Lewis.

[/quote:2c12328aab]



--Gathering wood for the roast-----


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 27, 2004)

While it is indeed true that Lewis (and Graham, actually) believes this horrific doctrine, the person I was thinking of who does is J. I. Packer. He said, &quot;We can safely say (i) if any good pagan reached the point of throwing himself on His Maker's mercy for pardon, it was grace that brought him there; (ii) God will surely save anyone he brings thus far; (iii) anyone thus saved would learn in the next world that he was saved through Christ.&quot; This is from page 210 of his book, [i:bc2ba20c4a]God's Words[/i:bc2ba20c4a], published in 1998. You can read the quotation at either http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/packer/general.htm or at www.svchapel.org/site/ThinkOnTheseThingsMinistries/ publications/html/postmodernism4.html. Surprising indeed.

Chris

[Edited on 2-27-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 27, 2004)

Should we make a distinction between those who say this is possible in theory and those who say this is what actually happens?


----------



## turmeric (Feb 27, 2004)

[quote:2611fdd1a2][i:2611fdd1a2]Originally posted by KayJay[/i:2611fdd1a2]
I thought that was something different though than this discussion...the idea of &quot;redemptive correlatives&quot; remind me of how Paul uses language of the &quot;mystery religions&quot; in 1 Corinthians. Of course the mystery religions had no power to save - there were just ideas/language he could use. (HOWEVER - I DON'T think that means Paul was SEEKER-SENSITIVE  )

If I believe in &quot;redemptive correlatives&quot; it doesn't necessarily mean that I believe people can be saved by the &quot;pictures&quot; of Christ's atonement. That's like saying someone could be saved by reading/watching &quot;The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe&quot; without ever hearing the Gospel. 

Do you agree that there is a distinction between a) believing there are redemptive correlatives that perhaps God uses when His elect bring His Gospel to a people - and b) believing that a people who trust in the abstract correlative are saved?

hope that made sense... [/quote:2611fdd1a2]


The mystery religions were based on myth...that is the theology of some people and very ignorant it is! No, I don't think redemptive correlatives are salvific - one must learn the truth and believe it, but they may provide a springboard for talking about and explaining the truth. Liked the post about the scapegoat - that's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about, some of them are better than others, notice that Paul used the terminology of the mystery religions but not the actual content! Poor C.S.Lewis, I think he was a Christian, but he was certainly mixed up. Billy Graham ought to know better, there is [b:2611fdd1a2]some[/b:2611fdd1a2] truth in Packer's remarks, but it would have been better to say that God would reveal His Gospel to such a person in this life, giving him/her opportunity to become a believer, there have been missionary stories of just such things, people waiting for them to come and explain,etc.

Sorry for the long post.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 27, 2004)

I don't know Lewis very well. I have read some of his writings, and admired his abilities. I think that we need to be careful here. Lewis was careful not to get mixed up in his particular place in the church, for he submitted his writings, such a [u:fcaae93142]Mere Christianity[/u:fcaae93142], when still in script form for his radio broadcasts, to his proper ecclesiastical authority. It is usual for him to comment on the nature of the kind of writings he was commonly dealing with in his vocation. It seems to me that it was his conviction that these writings were a clear demoonstration that there is no religious culture which is devoid of revelation, either through its historical memory or observation of the cosmos. There is a cultural remembrance of the true God in every culture, he held. 

There are certain ramifications that follow this notion. A person may be convicted to some degree, though small, of some revelation through these remnants. This ought not to be discounted. We have a way of saying the same thing, that every lie has at least some glimmerings of truth to it. If someone were to be attracted to those glimmerings, to the rejection of those things that it finds repugnant, it can be none other than the work of the Spirit. And as such they must belong to Christ.

But I don't believe that Lewis would say this in the same respect that we would say the same thing. When we talk about someone belonging to Christ, we are mindful of elected status, though we ourselves do not know God's eternal decree on the matter. But I think that Lewis had another use of that term that he used as well, like a hammer being used by a person, whether he owned it or not, was &quot;owned' or &quot;belonged to&quot; that person as he was using it. 

All I'm trying to say is that Lewis was not a universalist, and that what he says has to be understood according to how he used language to convey ideas in his own way. I may not agree with some excesses that he went to, but I do agree that every culture, and every religious writing amounts to a writ against those who hold to them, because one will find sufficient grounds to ask them why they did not follow good conscience and the witness of truth that they claimed to hold to. They need to know that they too &quot;belong&quot; to Christ, in that they too owe Him reverence and worship, and that their religion is no excuse, but rather an indictment. Lewis would not have gone into these matters, for it was outside his field of study. His field of study was the writings, the myths, the ideas, and use of languages to convey them. He was rather strict about that.


----------

