Theology for Dummies - Soteriology

From the Greek - meaning "Study of Salvation". The real problem with this theological term is that it is not exclusive to Christianity. Other religions will talk about soteriology as well because the basic idea is "What is salvation and how is one saved?" Now this question has been around for along time and the answers are so numerous that it takes large theological books to keep track of them all.

The basic issues in Christian Soteriology however are: 'How does God save us?', "How are sins forgiven?"; "How does one obtain eternal life?" along with many more like these. If you break it down into Christian camps of thought there are basically five with various offshoots: Orthodox, Catholic, Arminianism, Calvinism and Lutheran. It get real tricky though when putting some in a camp as elements tend to bleed over into another. Some schools have disputes over the particulars of each question within themselves as well.

The main issue though is to remember that when anyone use the term 'soteriology' they are talking about salvation.

Next: Ecclesiology

Theology for Dummies - Covenant Theology

Wikipedia: "The standard description of covenant theology views the history of God's dealings with mankind in all of history, from Creation to Fall to Redemption to Consummation, under the framework of three overarching theological covenants — the covenants of redemption, of works, and of grace."

Yeah, that about covers it. It also should be noted that this forms the basis and foundation of a couple of theological systems: Calvinism and Dispensationalism.

The idea is that over time God has changed the way he deals with people. No argument there, but the rub comes when you start saying that at different times God saved people differently. That is where I say this is a dangerous theology.

Paul is very clear in Romans and other places that everyone has been saved by one thing - faith. He sites Abraham to prove to a skeptical Jewish population of his day that just like the Gentiles, Abraham was saved by faith. When you start saying as a certain time people were saved by works or grace depending on the time they lived it seems to counter this idea and it does. Paul's whole point is that every man and woman has been saved by the grace of God through faith and that faith leads to action through obedience and love of God. Covenant Theology departs from this and that is why I rejected it long ago and the Calvinism and dispensationalism that goes with it. More on those later.

This theology also has the problem of presupposition. If you are always assuming these three covenant times exist; it will color your interpretation of Scripture. It means your setting yourself up for reading into Scripture what you want to see.

Next: Dialectical Theology

The Second Reformation

Well, you have to hand it to Martin Luther, the guy had guts. In our modern language -- balls. What is needed now is a whole bunch of Christians with the same testicular fortitude. Why? Because there is a second reformation of thought needed in the church in the Western World again. There are several reasons I think this is needed:

1. Religious Experience Has Failed to Prove God to a Secular World: Now my former brethren the Pentecostal/Charismatic types are going to hate me for saying this but your experiences with God don't prove a blessed thing. The problem with religious experience is all religious people have them and that extends beyond Christianity. A Quote by a Christian lady on Facebook to my agnostic friend:"we don't need to prove anything to no one because everyday we wake up we can feel God in the wind, in the sunshine. We know clearly there is a God..." Hmmm. I wonder if a Hindu could say the same thing: "We don't need to prove anything to no one because everyday we wake up we can feel Karma in the wind, in the sunshine. We clearly know Karma exists..." See my point? A religious experience or feelings about spirituality only prove something to the one who has them; change the perspective or belief system and experience can be duplicated in other religions. As proof that a faith is ultimately true personal religious experience is for the most part useless. From my own experience in the Pentecostal movement, I have seen preachers fake an extraordinary amount of things and try to teach me how to do it as well. Psychological manipulation is very real in religious societies and so experiences in that regard are not proof of anything but gullibility or emotional need and susceptibility. One thing Christians need to remember is 1 Peter 3:15 -- 'and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you of the reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." That means to anyone at anytime. It is not a waste of time to give a reasoned response to why you believe based on what they understand and believe, in fact I would say it is the command of the Lord.

2. Theological Hardness: On the flip side, reformed thought of the Calvinist variety has so dominated for so long it no longer, or perhaps never had, the flexibility to change in the face of new questions. The answers that convinced people of the truth of Christian faith in the last 300 years no longer work. Reformed theology ultimately just adds fuel to the fire of the problem of evil and in the end seems like an arrogant mind that refuses to budge in the face of Scriptural questions. Many, not just in the Reformed camp have got to the point that no new ideas will be accepted about any doctrine of theology. Meekness (see 1 Peter 3:15 above) is needed to realize that no person has God in a box or completely figured out and to not leave room for change in our thinking is just our pride talking.

3. The Increase of Knowledge. Hate to say it there is so much information and options out there it makes your head spin. I would even say there is a new group of religious folks out there that I can only label the "TryAnythings". The move from one faith to another to try it out and see if it fits. One thing this has caused is a despair that a thing called "TRUTH" even exists. This is all made possible because Christianity is no longer the only game in town and the other options are easily found. The Technology of Today makes any religion no matter what or where it is accessible. This has led to a smarter and more knowledgeable population who have seen a lot and while Christianity may claim uniqueness, they can see similarities and that is what they treat Christianity like any other faith.

How is such a reformation going to happen? I don't think a fat monk is going to come along and nail 95 thesis to the door again, I don't think that the second reformation will belong to any single person. It is about a change of spirit so large that is going to be one of those quiet revolutions that is in many ways already happening. The Emergent Church takes a lot of flak from some corners of Christianity, but at least they are listening to what unbelievers are saying and formulating a response. That is however only one response; there are more.

One thing that is also happening is that Christians are returning to their Bibles and reading them for themselves and formulating new beliefs based on their own reading about God, Salvation and Christ. I am going to say this -- it is about time! It may take the passing of an old guard of thinkers in favor of a new one to make these changes. This means an inflexible denominational systems are going to fail to attract new people as more and more people will want a church where they can be free to believe differently than their brothers and sisters in Christ and still be accepted as part of the family of God.

Technology may provide accessibility to other religions but it also means that information about Christianity is also accessible like never before including about the historical questions about the Scriptures and Jesus Christ. It is also leading to a phenomena I and others call --faith without borders where Christians don't inhabit certain countries anymore with dominate cultures; they are everywhere. Those that are embracing this no longer dominating but permeating the world are part of the reformation to come.

It is already happening and like a snow ball rolling down a hill it will grow and then change everything when it reaches full maturity. The only real thing that stands in its way is a Traditional Protestantism but that is dying. It is just a matter of time.

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPS -- Part 7 -- Stepping on TULIPS

I suppose if you have been reading this series you will probably gather by now that I am not a Calvinist. In fact over the years i have earned several nicknames -- Sir_Edward -- of the order of the Anti-Calvinists, Calvinist Basher, Calvinists Bane, etc. etc. I gladly accept them all. Most of them were given to by Calvinists in the form of name calling but I have made them badges of honor. The question is why I am so against this doctrine. I have given many of the Scriptural problems I have with this doctrine in this series, but I will admit it is much more personal than that.

1. The Image It Creates of God is Diabolical: In Calvinism we have a God who predestines people to hell and does so without cause. God is not only unjust in Calvinism, he is also one mean SOB. The problem of God in relation to evil is difficult enough when talking about hell but now we have a God who wilfully throws people into it and offers them no chance of redemption. I find this not only Biblically unsatisfactory but what image of God is this where we can say God is a loving God who is 'not willing that any should perish.' This doctrine makes such an idea a fantasy.

2. It is a System That Leads to Hermeneutical Slavery: Once a person accepts this system it forever dominates their thinking. Kind of like the 'dark side'. ;-) Even if you present a verse that directly contradicts a tenet of Calvinist thought they will find a way around it to come with a way to save it. See common interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:4.

3. The Image of Man It Creates is as Puppet Not Person. In the end each person has no real value. In fact Calvinism creates a group of people who are valuable to God and others who are not. You cannot say a person is valuable to God if first he predestines them to hell and then sends them there without any choice or interaction on their part. The elect on the other hand are extremely valuable to God for some reason but no reason you can put your finger on.

4. It's Fruits: a) Fatalism -- people just give up to the fate of God's justice. There is ultimate way to preach personal responsibility when everything you are is because God made you do it and be it. This get difficult to explain how God is good when he is responsible for people for being the evil they are -- Hitler comes to mind. b) Murder -- I know of at least three stories where people believed they were elect to damnation and then killed themselves because of it. c) False security of salvation -- With the ultimate fruits of POTS and OSAS it is not surprising the one thing I here every so often is -- 'I prayed at the altar so now I am saved -- NO MATTER WHAT I DO.' Calvinists say these people are taught poorly, but the truth is they are just arriving at destinations that are logical conclusions.

Yep, for these reasons and all the Biblical ones I cannot embrace Calvinism. In fact I think the doctrine is very bad indeed.

Finis

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 6 -- P -- Perserverance of the Saints or Nothing Can Stop Us Now.

Perseverance of the Saints (POTS) is a doctrine I would probably like to believe in except for one thing -- There is at least one entire book of the Bible against it -- Hebrews.

POTS basically states that those who God gives his grace to through U, L and I will automatically Persevere and will not be lost no matter what. The saint automatically perseveres even if he lives a sinful lifestyle or really has no relationship with God. Come to Think of it I remember Romans 6 has something to say about that as well.

POTS combined with Irresistible Grace leads to one of the most devilish doctrines of all time -- Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). If grace can not be resisted and the saints cannot lose their salvation then it seems the most logical conclusion. I know there are some branches of Baptist and Reformed Thinking that discard I and P for a form of freewill defense but honestly I think Calvin is right: If T.U.L. is true than I and P are inevitable. But then again, I think Calvin was completely bonkers about the whole thing.

Getting Back to Hebrews and POTS. Two Problems 1) The entire book of Hebrews is written to Jews who have come out of Judaism for the sole purpose of convincing them to stay in Christianity and not turn back to Judaism because the New Covenant with Christ is better than the Old. If there is no real danger of losing ones salvation as POTS claims, then why would the writer of Hebrews be worried about this happening in the first place? 2) Hebrews 6:4-6 -- For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. Now this is odd isn't it -- if it is not possible to lose ones salvation then why talk this way?

Now I know that those who hold to POTS and OSAS say that this paragraph does not describe a person who is saved, but then that also has problems 1) If they are not really saved, then what exactly are they falling away from? It is hard to fall from something you never had to begin with. 2) If this verse were written about anything else but falling away and we saw this verse: For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, What would we say it describes then? If this does not describe salvation,what then does it describe?

Suppose it read instead:For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, to be deceived (change for example purposes only).

You could bet then people would be saying that those who are saved cannot be deceived. But because it talks about falling away from these things; it cannot be salvation because to the POTS Believer salvation cannot be flalen away from. It would directly contradict his doctrine. This is probably one of the greatest cases of eisegesis (reading what we want to be in Scripture) in the modern/port modern world today. This is what happens when a doctrine trumps a plain reading of Scripture.

Nope. Don't See POTS or OSAS as true. If fact I have rejected the whole thing and next week I am going to tell you why.

Next: Stepping on TULIPs -- Why I reject Calvinism.

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 5 -- I -- Irresistable Grace or God the Spiritual Rapist

Oh boy, Whenever I write on this topic I get 'fan' mail. One major problem is that not all Calvinist go this far, but to be blunt if T,U and L are true then I is inevitable. You can dance around it but in the end God's grace is irresistible if election is unconditional. If God has elected you to salvation you are forced to accept his grace.

The doctrine of irresistible grace states basically this: that once God has decided to give his grace to you (See unconditional election) you cannot resist it and you will become saved. Like it or not.

Between this and P -- Perseverance Of The Saints (which I will deal with next week) you get the basis for Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). But more on that next week.

My largest problem with this is the image it creates of God that is highly unbiblical.

1) God only presents his grace to the elect. I find a universality in the Scripture of who gets loved by God -- Everyone. If every person is loved by God then why would he only make grace irresistible to those who he has made elect.
2) Faith coming exclusively from God. God only gives faith that saves to those he chooses. The fact remains that when our faith is talked about, it is always given the possessive to us. The Bible never describes faith as God's through us, but ours -- 'your faith' is always the idea. "Your faith has made you whole." etc., etc.
3) Throughout the Old Testament God's people are repeatedly described by God as being rebellious, but what difference would it make if God's grace is irresistible? None. Here we have God going on and on through the prophets calling his people back to him if such a call was irresistible in the first place. God does not work this way in the whole counsel of God.

To further my point, I would like to use an analogy that is common is Scripture. Marriage. The image of marriage is often used of God and his people. Now if this doctrine is true this is how covenant works with God. God proposes the covenant of marriage to you. You not only must say yes but you cannot help but say yes. You have been drugged by god so that you cannot help but say yes. Once you have said yes, God forces himself upon you in relationship and intimacy with him. This would be like me proposing marriage to my wife and then telling her she cannot help but say yes. In fact I am going to answer for her and say yes by taking over her mind and will to make her. Once we are married, I take her home with me and she must do what ever I will. She cannot refuse me for I keep her drugged so she never can resist anything I want to do. There is no love here in such a relationship -- constant spiritual rape is more like it.

Paula and others pay attention here.

I think salvation works more on the line of what engagement and marriage is supposed to be like: When I asked my wife to marry me I waited for her response. I CHOSE Her but she had to say 'yes'. Her saying 'yes' is nothing she did to earn my love, it is simply an acceptance of my offer and gift. Once yes was said did that mean my wife suddenly lost her will and she had nothing to say about how she and i walked in relationship? I think not. Such covenant relationships require give and take on both sides. If she goes out and fools around and no longer want to be married to me -- divorce takes place the covenant is broken.

In the same way God chose me and offered me his salvation but I still had to say yes. To say yes I must believe in Christ's resurrection and confess His Lordship over my life. (Romans 10:9-10) Was I doing 'a work' by doing this? No, all I did was accept an offered gift. Once done, I have said yes, but that does not mean the covenant does not have to be maintained. If I ever stop believing in the resurrection of Christ or, by my life, no longer confess the Lordship of Christ -- the covenant is broken. Conditions exist in this covenant and they are to be maintained or the covenant is gone. Read Deuteronomy for an example of this idea between God and his people.

Next: P - Perseverance of the Saint or Nothing Can Stop Us Now.

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 4 -- L -- Limited Atonement or Jesus' Blood Can Only Do So Much

Now, in Calvinism, the central core of the system is Total Depravity and Unconditional Election. Once a person accepts these the remaining things of TULIP just follow.

Limited Atonement states that because election is unconditional then Jesus only died for the elect. Some versions state that Jesus' sacrifice only applied to the elect, but either way, atonement is limited to the elect.

I have two objections to this
1) The first is that this is patently Unbiblical -- 1 John 2:2 -- "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." John basically states that Jesus blood and sacrifice is a propitiation for every sin committed; not just but Christians but the whole world. There are other verses like this but only one is necessary.

2) Doesn't this limit the power of Christ's blood? Seems to. It means that Christ's power over sin only extends to those who are the elect. After that Jesus' blood has no power.

Now as I do not accept T or U anyway, it does not follow for me that atonement is limited but applied to anyone who accepts it by faith.

Next: I -- Irresistible Grace or God the Spiritual Rapist

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 3 -- U -- Unconditional Election and God the Devil

Unconditional Election in my mind is the most heinous of the Tulips we are tiptoeing through because is creates an interesting an unbiblical view of God. When Wesley talked of it it said that it created a portrait of God that made God the devil. I agree.

The doctrine of unconditional election states that a person is predestined to heaven or hell before they are ever born. In short, God decided who will be with him in heaven or hell before they are even created. In short we have picture of God who is sitting on a throne who is throwing people right and left into heaven or hell before they have done anything. My problems with this are enormous.

1) How is God just if he does this? The defense I have heard is that God's justice is different than ours, but this is not so. God tells us what justice is and then declares himself many times to be its definition that we should follow and that we can know justice by knowing him.

2) Biblically this hard to support as every story that is told about final judgment tells us that people are judged by their actions as well as whether or not they possess faith in Christ. The names being blotted out of the book of life in Revelation is a particularly telling comment, overcoming to the end, and the words in Romans speaking of 'whosoever will' are expressions that cover the Bible with one idea -- there is a choice to be made by us that affects our salvation. it is a relationship entered into by covenant of BOTH parties including us.

The fact is that Calvin was trying to make God super sovereign and in so doing he robbed God of justice. He has turned the loving God into the unmerciful devil.

Some of the fruit I have seen of this doctrine are telling: One man I heard of burned himself to death because he believed that he was predestined to hell and he wanted to shorten the trip. Probably the most heinous thing it does is it justifies an antinomian attitude. Such a doctrine does more to fuel the 'let us sin that grace abound idea than any other. Calvinists I have talked to say this is not the case but ultimately does it matter what you do as a Christian. If you live righteously you go to heaven if your predestined to heaven, but even if you don't you are still predestined to heaven your going even if you sleep around or are a drunkard, etc. People living in sin openly because of a lack of fear of justice of God because you see they are predestined to heaven or Once Saved Always Saved doctrines that come from it abound.

In then end, I am pretty sure this is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches to enter into a walk with through Christ by covenanting with him through his blood. To continue in that walk overcoming sin and situation through the Holy Spirit and to continue to the end. Unconditional election makes salvation a one shot wonder that really ultimately has no bearing in how we live our life.

Next: L -- Limited Atonement or Jesus' Blood Only Has So Much Power

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 2 -- T -- Total Depravity and Other Myths

I remember when I told a friend that I did not believe in total depravity and that I felt the doctrine was unbiblical. His response was pretty typical -- 'Ed I know you and your past -- you were totally depraved'. Here is the thing, do we base our beliefs about God and man on our experiences as human beings or on the teachings found in Scriptures? The Scriptures I would hope. Then why is it then that the chief defense for this doctrine I hear is based on human experience? Odd.

OK, a little lesson in logic before we begin. Universals of either type are very difficult to prove. When you say 'All preachers are mortal' or 'No preachers are mortal' there is a universality to both. The first is positive; the second is negative. Of the two, the negative is the the most easiest to disprove. In ALL statements you may have to search a while. But all you would have to do in the case above is find one immortal preacher and the case is closed. In NO statements all you have to do is find is one example of an exception and the case is closed. One mortal preacher and the game is over. That is why a statement such as -- there is no God is difficult to both prove and maintain. All the theist has to do is prove is one proof for God's existence and the argument fails and to prove it, the atheist has to pretty much say he is looked in every corner of any place that exists to show God does not exist.

Total Depravity states: There is NO action by man that is not marked by sin. This is actually the weakest type of argument to make. All you have to do is show a single example of an action taken by a man that is declared to be righteous by God and the argument is gone.

First thing --define sin. Total Depravity proponents define sin as 'missing the mark' using etymology to get the definition. The problem is that the Bible itself gives definitions of sin and they never use -- 'missing the mark.' If sin is anything that is not flawlessly perfect then total depravity is true, maybe. The problem is that using etymology -- looking up the original meaning of a word -- is not helpful. What matters is what the word means when the author penned it. In all case of the writers of Scripture from Moses to John the Apostle the definition is pretty much the same: Sin is a violation or disobedience to the commands of God. With Biblical definition in hand, lets look to see if in the Bible (best source) or in life (support source) where people might not be in violation of the commands of God and thus not be totally depraved.

1) People in the Bible declared righteous by God. There are many of these but the most notable example is Job to make my point. "Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God." Boy, either definition you use, total depravity takes a nasty knock. "Through all this Job did not miss the mark or blame God" or 'Through all this Job did not violate a command of God ...". The point is this, once you have the Scriptures saying there was no sin to a person's actions, the doctrine that nothing we do is not touched by sin becomes difficult to maintain. There are many more of these if you read Scripture. Try Luke 1:5-6: 'In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

2) In life, do you really want to God through every action a person could possible take and then say what is sinful about it. A person jumps in a lake and saves a person from drowning -- where is the sin? All I have to do is show one action taken by anyone that does not violate a command of God or actually upholds a command and BANG -- no total depravity.

This is not to say that I do not believe all people are sinners. "All have sinned" is a Biblical statement. The only thing required to make this true however is that each person sin once. It is a Universal Positive Statement logically. Once a person has violated the law of God even a single time they qualify and need a Savior. Total Depravity not required.

Nor will I say that I do not believe that people become depraved -- Romans 1 declares and shows a decent into depravity. The one thing though I can say is that how does one descend to a lower point of depravity as Romans 1 indicates if you are already at the bottom as Total Depravity indicates? Strange, huh? My point is we start as sinners and then as we continue to sin we become depraved.

For me, the more I thought about it, the doctrine of total depravity is overly simplistic in describing the condition of mankind in relationship to God. It also is extremely negative in its assessment of the human condition; where I don't think even God has such a view of man or he would have destroyed us in the flood and been done with it. I just find it Scripturally and intellectually unsatisfying. It is not the worst letter in TULIP but in the end I find it wanting and I reject it.

Next: U -- Unconditional Election and God the Devil.

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 1 -- The Calvinistic Manifesto

My thought for Tuesdays is to discuss theology in some way. To start off with I decided that I would tackle something that is by now for me an old struggle. I spent many years and a lot of forum time debating Calvinists in my early days on the Internet. In the end I rejected the whole bundle of tulips and left it as a failed system. Failed because it has no Biblical support; it stands as a system and a system alone. It is a manifesto of sorts and a system to hang Scripture on but sometimes the Scriptures just don't stay hung and then there are some parts of the Bible you just can't stick of TULIP at all -- they contradict it.

T -- Total Depravity
U -- Unconditional Election
L -- Limited Atonement
I -- Irresistible Grace
P -- Perseverance of the Saints

It is a really easy way to remember the five points of Calvinist thought. I will go through each on in this series, lay it out for you and then debunk it. I have never had much uses for theological systems -- what do you do if they break down or are shown to be Biblically in error? I have even less use for this one and over the next month and a half I will tell you why.

Next: T -- Total Depravity and Other Myths.

Engaging God's Problem -- About the Author.

Much of chapter 1 of God's Problem by Bart Ehrman is his personal story of how he moved from being a Christian theist to an agnostic. Who an author is and where he has come from are often factors in how they view things and so I am commenting on his background. What I am including here is what he says about himself so keep that in mind.

1. Bart was baptized in an Congregational church but raised Episcopalian. There is no story here of conversion in the classical sense -- he is born into the church and it is always a part of his life.

2. At a Youth for Christ rally he had what he calls a born again experience but in his description is not one of personal transformation but one of desire to escape hell. The experience 'ratcheted my faith up a notch" but there is no evidence from what he says that God became a personal God to him.

3. He had a desire to do ministry and went to Moody Bible Institute but had to finish at Wheaton because Moody was not accredited at the time. He then attended Princeton Theological Seminary eventually receiving his Ph.D in New Testament Studies.

4. His Ministry included work in a Evangelical Covenant Church and an American Baptist Church along with being a professor. He is well versed in classical Christianity and the Christian Faith.

5. He left his faith kicking and screaming and in the end became an agnostic because of the problem addressed in this book -- suffering.

6. He is currently the Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and has authored at least a couple books --this one in 2008 and Misquoting Jesus in 2007.

Evaluation:
I wish I could say I am surprised at his background, but Bart actually represents a larger group of people who cannot reconcile the world around them and their faith. Their faith however, in my humble opinion, is faith based on a faulty view of God and a particular interpretation of God's Word that comes from a Baptist /Calvinistic background. Coupled with a liberal education where the historicity of the Bible is undermined and questioned and you get an agnostic.

I have a few questions:
1. In his examination of the problem of suffering I wonder how much time was spent looking at other interpretations of Scripture other than the classical ones?
2. I wonder how much Higher Criticism affected his interpretations and affected his judgment on the issue?
3. I wonder how one would convince a person to return to Christianity after leaving if no answer will seem to do no matter how much it may make sense?

Still he is a person I would love to talk to because we both had the same problem at about the same time in our lives -- his was 15 years ago or so and mine more recent but in both cases it was the problem of suffering and evil that nearly broke me a couple years ago and it is the problem that broke him. The significance is three fold

1. One I was trained to believe, he to doubt
2. I understood that born again required transformation and was not ultimately about escaping hell but entering to dynamic relationship with God, he did not.
3. I was not afraid to look at the entire Bible differently if the theory I was trying to make work was just not working. I believe in possibilities of interpretation and was not afraid to take on the status quo of both higher criticism and classic theology.

This engagement will be interesting