Russell Moore on divorce: "we speak in very muted and ambiguous terms ... "
Professor says Christians use double standard for homosexuality, divorce “The reason we speak that way is because the people in our congregations are not watching divorcee parades in San Francisco and shaking their heads in disgust,” Moore said. “We have far more out-of-the-closet divorcees than out-of-the-closet homosexuals in our congregations, at least that we know about, and the out-of-the-closet divorcees are the ones who are tithing and paying bills, and so we speak to them in a very different way than we speak to others on the outside. That is a scandal.”
[Anne Sokol]“What Paul is clearly saying is that if anyone is worthy of being saved, they will be saved. At that point many Christians get very anxious, saying that absolutely no one is worthy of being saved. The implication of that is that a person can be almost totally good, but miss the message about Jesus, and be sent to hell. What kind of a God would do that? I am not going to stand in the way of anyone whom God wants to save. I am not going to say “he can’t save them.” I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can. It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved.”—Dallas Willard, Apologetics in Action[edingess] Didn’t Dallas Willard write that people can be saved without knowing Jesus in his book, Divine Conspiracy? I heard Dallas Willard say that he believes that everyone who deserves to be saved will be saved no matter where they are or what they do. NOT A Willard fan at all.
can you give me some concrete sources? I’ve not read all of Divine Conspiracy, but I have it and I really doubt something of that nature is in there ;)
I’ll try to find the part where he talks about that passage and divorce. Would be interesting. Im quoting 2nd-hand from my mom.
This is from an article Willard authored. It is a response to a college girl who was raised Christian, but has now taken the view that all paths lead to God. Not to get side-tracked, but everything I have read about Willard’s views on soteriology are, quite frankly, mortifiying. Now, back to the topic at hand.
I do agree that re-marriage was assumed in our Lord’s teachings where He deals with the matter of divorce. This was the common practice of that culture. The division of property is not entirely true as there were mechanisms in place for the woman’s protecting in some cases. I also agree with the perspective that romantic love and sexual attraction have served as a detriment to marriage due to their evelated positions in Western culture. They are so elevated because they happen to be consistent with the hedonistic and narcissitic behaviors so prevalent in our time.
The cause of divorce is sin. I heard an elder once say, regarding a long-standing woman in our church who had left her husband, “it is not so black and white. She is a woman and has a lot of emotions going on regarding the relationship and we can’t just dismiss those.” The real issue was that she had a lot of friends who were financial supporters of the church and they were threatening to leave behind the scence if anyone dared to discipline her for this. So they convinced the church that her husband neglected her, manipulated her, and even emotionally abused her and propped up the sin. It was a VERY sad thing to see. Of course, I left the church because I cannot follow leaders like that. But this is VERY common in the church. We do not obey Scripture out of a pure love for God. We introduce all these supposed complexities and then soften our disobedience through sinful human reasoning.
I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4
edingess, did you check your source yourself? I’m not here to defend D. Willard, but that is not a really true representation of what was said. It’s not an article he wrote, it’s a transcript. He was asked to role-play a dialogue. http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=14] Here is the webpage and here is the quote to the end; it has a different emphasis—I think it’s unclear, too, where he is stating the thougths of these types of Christians wondering about this and where he is stating his own POV—I don’t think all the thoughts are his POV, they are his reflection of what others are saying/thinking:
What Paul is clearly saying is that if anyone is worthy of being saved, they will be saved. At that point many Christians get very anxious, saying that absolutely no one is worthy of being saved. The implication of that is that a person can be almost totally good, but miss the message about Jesus, and be sent to hell. What kind of a God would do that? I am not going to stand in the way of anyone whom God wants to save. I am not going to say “he can’t save them.” I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can. It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved. But anyone who is going to be saved is going to be saved by Jesus: “There is no other name given under heaven by which men can be saved.”
Article or transcript, makes little difference the form heresy takes. It is heresy to even imply that anyone is worth saving. It is equally heresy to say that Jesus saves people even if they may not know who He is or even that they are actually saved in the way Scripture teaches. What kind of man would even hint that it might in unjust for God to send people to hell who were almost totally good, but missed the message about Jesus? Men sound in the Christian faith do use such language. Only men unsound in their thinking and beliefs gravitate to such ungodly speculations. My opinion.
I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4
saying that that is probably not what he is saying. He is reflecting the thoughts of other christisians. we can’t hear his verbal cues b/c it is a transcript.
And le’ts suppose it is him saying it. He is not denying God’s plan of salvation. He is affirming God’s loving power and sovereignty over salvation for someone who is doubting it.
And le’ts suppose it is him saying it. He is not denying God’s plan of salvation. He is affirming God’s loving power and sovereignty over salvation for someone who is doubting it.
I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can. It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved. But anyone who is going to be saved is going to be saved by Jesus: “There is no other name given under heaven by which men can be saved.”anyway, … back to the topic at hand.
Two things stand out about the transcript you referenced: first, this woman says that she thinks that Jesus was the greatest teacher that ever lived. But she also says that she feels like she has to ‘buy’ an awful lot more. The implication is His divinity and perhaps His exclusivity. In other words, I want to be okay accepting Jesus as the greatest teacher that ever lived, but don’t ask me to buy His divinity and exclusivity. How does Willard answer her?
I am reminded of Hebrews 6:1-3 where the writer encourages his readers to lay aside the elementary teachings about the Christ. It would seem to me that evangelicals have been in the midst of a reverse reformation for a few years now. Rather than growing and maturing and move on to more mature subjects, we seem to have permitted a great relapse on the contents of the gospel. We don’t even rcognize it when someone describes faith in a manner that is far out of bounds with Scripture. What Williard should have done immediately is direct this woman to Romans 3:10-18 to clear up her thinking that there is such a thing as a ‘good’ buddhist or any other unbelieving person. There is none good, NO NOT ONE! Grace is destroyed by the kind of thinking Willard posits. If people are in fact good, then a good moral God would be required to try and save good people. THAT IS NOT GRACE! The gospel collapses into humanistic philosophies once we elevate human beings to a status of good. The cross becomes a moral obligation rather than a profound act of grace and mercy borne from the heart of God whose love we can never comprehend. In Willard’s view, God must send Christ to redeem good men. That is the only right thing to do. How repugnant a message when compared to what the Scripture actually teaches. This is not biblical faith, it is not what Christ preached, the apostles taught, and it isn’t the gospel.
What I would say is this: you don’t have to buy anything you don’t want. We have to help people understand that belief is something that comes along as you experience. You don’t have to fake anything. The way faith works is this: you put into practice what you believe. If you’re attracted to Jesus, what do you believe about him that you can act on? Experience shows again and again that when you allow people to act on the little that they do believe, the rest will follow.This is not how saving faith works! Nowhere is this definition or illustration ever put forth or illustrated in Scripture. This reponse reflects a very serious and dangerous deficiency in Willard’s soteriology. The role-play continues with the woman saying that there are a lot of other “good” buddhists in the world and questions their destiny. Now Willard responds with the following:
I would take her to Romans 2:6-10: “God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.”Notice the Williard clearly asserts that it is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved by Jesus. Well, I am sorry to say that this contradicts Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus said, “There I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that i am He, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24) Jesus places salvation entirely in the hands of God when He says, “All that the Father gives to me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out.” (John 6:37)
What Paul is clearly saying is that if anyone is worthy of being saved, they will be saved. At that point many Christians get very anxious, saying that absolutely no one is worthy of being saved. The implication of that is that a person can be almost totally good, but miss the message about Jesus, and be sent to hell. What kind of a God would do that? I am not going to stand in the way of anyone whom God wants to save. I am not going to say “he can’t save them.” I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can. It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved. But anyone who is going to be saved is going to be saved by Jesus: “There is no other name given under heaven by which men can be saved.”
I am reminded of Hebrews 6:1-3 where the writer encourages his readers to lay aside the elementary teachings about the Christ. It would seem to me that evangelicals have been in the midst of a reverse reformation for a few years now. Rather than growing and maturing and move on to more mature subjects, we seem to have permitted a great relapse on the contents of the gospel. We don’t even rcognize it when someone describes faith in a manner that is far out of bounds with Scripture. What Williard should have done immediately is direct this woman to Romans 3:10-18 to clear up her thinking that there is such a thing as a ‘good’ buddhist or any other unbelieving person. There is none good, NO NOT ONE! Grace is destroyed by the kind of thinking Willard posits. If people are in fact good, then a good moral God would be required to try and save good people. THAT IS NOT GRACE! The gospel collapses into humanistic philosophies once we elevate human beings to a status of good. The cross becomes a moral obligation rather than a profound act of grace and mercy borne from the heart of God whose love we can never comprehend. In Willard’s view, God must send Christ to redeem good men. That is the only right thing to do. How repugnant a message when compared to what the Scripture actually teaches. This is not biblical faith, it is not what Christ preached, the apostles taught, and it isn’t the gospel.
I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4
you can have the last word. I’m not here to defend Dallas Willard. I will say that there are people, myself included, who are not, based on this transcript, coming to the conclusion that DW is a heretic, as you are describing him.
Discussion