Heresy in the Bible?
I’ve noted a tendency amongst both friends and enemies (hopefully this is hyperbole!) of mine to declare people heretics for some very brief statements, especially in matters of soteriology. People are particularly quick to pick up on any suggestion of legalism or Pelagianism.
But I notice that the Bible writers are not terribly careful to nuance their statements on such issues. There are, in fact, many places in the Bible where one could assume salvation by works if one took a small section at a time. Peter seemed to have some problem with Paul’s clarity, referring to “obscure passages” (2 Peter 3:16). One could get the idea that Paul was antinomian in some of his passages. Of course, he himself would respond with a me genoito should he be confronted with such a possibility.
Jesus might have been accused of preaching salvation by works when he says that those who simply say “Lord, Lord” or call him “Lord” will not necessarily enter the kingdom, but those who do his Father’s will (Matthew 7:21-23). Now I’m aware of many of the ways we fit these passages together into a coherent soteriology, but the fact is that the Bible has plenty of passages that pose difficulties.
Perhaps this should suggest to us that there is a little bit of flexibility in the way we express God’s plan of salvation, and if not flexibility, at least forgiveness.
I was reminded of this as I do a series of podcasts on 2 Peter 1:3-11. My attention was first called to this passage by Laura Curtis of Pursuing Holiness, and it has stuck with me. Today, as I was preparing the script for the latest installment, I noticed again this portion: “be all the more eager to confirm your call and election.” Confirm one’s election? Surely you jest, Peter! If one is elected, one is elected!
Well, perhaps not. There seems to be some tension here, and the flexible handle tension better.
Hi Henry,
I know this is not going to make me popular here — and I can’t claim any deep knowledge of the bible to back me up — but I kind of get the feeling, reading the Synoptic Gospels, that Jesus pretty much was preaching salvation by works. Not salvation by just any good works, but salvation by good works done from a good heart. In other words, good done for its own sake (and not in seek of reward or to avoid punishment). And add to that the fact that in all three gospels, to my recollection, Jesus is quoted as saying he didn’t come for the righteous (or the healthy). While the context could have made the comment sarcastic (he was talking to Pharisees, at the time), assuming it wasn’t does imply there were people already doing fine. It is the Gospel of John that seems to focus heavily on salvation by belief — to the exclusion of all else — and that Gospel was written rather late (90-120 CE). To my mind (not being a fan of inerrancy), that means it represents more of where the church was going, than where it had been. (Of course, as the Synoptic Gospels weren’t written until after 50CE, I could be arguing against my own point.) Still, there is a definite conflict between those passages that advocate salvation by belief, and salvation by right action. It has always seemed to me to make Christianity rather inconsistent. But, lately, I’m starting to think that it’s the action that Jesus cared about. He even said something to the effect that, “Those who aren’t against me are for me.” Belief in him didn’t seem a big deal to him, in the earlier gospels. I’m starting to suspect that it was added by other people, much later.
The problem is that “original sin”, as a doctrine, seems based in a view we know to be false — the idea that Man (Adam and Eve, in particular) was made perfect, and fell from grace by his own acts. Of course, in a world where Man evolved from earlier species, in a continuous chain back to the beginning of life . . . that idea doesn’t seem to fit very well, any more. Nor does it seem to fit well with the idea that God “is a respecter of persons”, as it implies God holds us responsible for acts over which we had no authority. It’s funny — I have long argued with creationists in my family that evolution doesn’t threaten Christian theology, but, at least in this aspect, I’m now not so sure. That said, I’m not particularly tied to dogma, in general, so I may be showing my ignorance with this line of thought. Still, it has me wondering.
As always, thanks for the thought-provoking posts.
Regards,
Chris.
I will be blogging on this topic quite a bit more, but I do think Jesus was teaching that one’s life must display certain fruit if one is to see the kingdom of heaven. I wrote earlier on this in my essay A Fruitful Faith, which found it’s way into my book Not Ashamed of the Gospel.
I think that Christianity has unfortunately created a separate realm of faith. Originally, the good heart producing good works involved people putting their trust in God, and good works growing from that relationship. There was no intent that one simply say some words and become saved.
But that’s a much longer topic.