Contrary to what many people state, religions are NOT all the same, and do not all lead to the same God. Anyone who actually has studied the various major world religions closely knows how very different they actually are. Pretending they are all alike is a case of intellectual vandalism. It is also a case of seeking to short circuit the truth. Opposing truth claims are NOT identical nor can they be readily harmonised. Sure, we want people of differing faiths to try to live peacefully with their neighbours, but that is a different matter.

We can get into real trouble when we fail to make basic distinctions. Consider the issue of truth versus opinion, or fact versus feelings. You are entitled to your own opinions, tastes and preferences, but you are not entitled to your own truth or facts. Truth is truth, and facts are facts, regardless of how you feel about them or think about them.
The law of gravity may not be to your personal liking, but it remains in place nevertheless. You can speak all you like about “my truth” but there is only THE truth. So pretend all you like that the law of gravity is just someone’s personal opinion, but if you leap off a ten-story building you will discover immediately that your mere opinion does not matter at all.
Or consider the woman who now” identifies” as a man. She can start lopping of her hair – and other bits – but she still has every single cell in her body screaming ‘female.’ Reality has a nasty way of getting in the way of our illusions and preferences. In a similar fashion, a square will always be a square, no matter how hard we try to identify it as a circle.
All this is also true in the realm of worldviews, religions, and truth claims. Contrary to what many people state, religions are NOT all the same, and do not all lead to the same God. Anyone who actually has studied the various major world religions closely knows how very different they actually are.
Pretending they are all alike is a case of intellectual vandalism. It is also a case of seeking to short circuit the truth. Opposing truth claims are NOT identical nor can they be readily harmonised. Sure, we want people of differing faiths to try to live peacefully with their neighbours, but that is a different matter.
All this came to the fore quite recently. In a new post about the film Sound of Freedom I mentioned that there is a very real place for going through a doctrinal checklist, but we need not always be on the same page with someone when it comes to saving our child from sexual predators. So one gal wrote in with this comment:
I’m surprised that anyone would criticise this film on the basis of the theology of those involved in the production. We don’t judge, or even ask, about the beliefs of our doctor, our plumber or the supermarket checkout person.
I’m also surprised, Bill, that you advocate a “theological checklist” be applied to a potential marital or business associate. Having worked in several workplaces in my career, I’ve rarely known what beliefs my fellow workers hold, nor has it seemed of any relevance in the secular world of business.
I married a man from a different faith tradition and we’ve been very happy together for over 30 years. We don’t argue about theology because we both know it’s a matter of personal opinion. Who knows, we could both be wrong. We’ll never learn or consider a new viewpoint if we don’t discuss such matters with an open mind.
As I started to write a response to cover her various points, it grew longer and longer. Given that it might be of some help to others, I decided to turn it into a full-length article. So what follows is what I had said to her in reply:
Thanks ****. But I need to explain to you why some things DO matter when it comes to theology.
Read More
Related Posts:

Comprehending the importance of celebration, commemoration, and confirmation in light of the festivity of the Table meal changes our relationship to how we approach the question of who is to be granted access to the bread and the cup. If those without faith should not come to the Lord’s Supper because they have not any of these gifts it is because they do not have warrant to come, as is remarked by Ralph Erskine in the last quote above. It’s why Paul bars any who cannot “judge the body rightly” from the supper meal in Corinth. It is an act of love to prevent harm to those who know not what the Table entails. We shouldn’t invite men to sin in worship.

As we move on to the second part of the talk on close communion, or again session-controlled communion in more recent parlance we need to start by thinking about what the Lord’s Supper is in order that we can better understand why there would even be a need to have a doctrine about who can and cannot partake of the covenant meal at a local church. It’s kind of like writing an essay on whether the banning of the shift has been good for Major League Baseball. Whether or not the reader knows what baseball is needs be a prerequisite before you can talk about the most recent rule change affecting the sport. In order to define for us communion we’ll follow our previously established pattern of limiting ourselves to ARP sources so that we can learn more about why and what the ARP once believed on the question at hand.
Biblically the Lord’s Supper was established by the example and command of Christ as He prepared His disciples before He went to the cross (Matt. 26:26-29). After His death, resurrection, and ascension we see the Church continuing to practice the eating of this meal in the context of worship in places like Acts 2:42, Acts 20:7, and 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. A thing to consider, which will be important for later, is that whenever the people gather together for the purpose of breaking bread the word is always present. The reason why this matters is that we must always understand the Lord’s Supper to be tied into the preaching of the Word. It is not something we do separate from the ordinary life of the Church, nor is it something we do at random or without due consideration. In light of this let’s look at a few things from Ralph Erskine as to what he understands to be the purpose behind the ordinance. This will help us get in the right frame of mind as we move forward.
First, he remarks that it is a celebration as he says:
“Then, the doctrine I am upon, may give us some insight into the nature and end of this sacrament. Why, it is a just celebrating the memorial of the death of the man that is God’s fellow, when, as the glorious shepherd, he yielded himself a sacrifice to the awakened sword of justice, in the room of the sheep.”
Then, he notes it is a commemoration:
“This sacrament is appointed to be a commemorative sign of the death of Christ; ‘As often as  you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you shew forth the Lord’s death till he come. Do this in remembrance of me’; of me, who became a sacrifice to the sword of justice; by which sacrifice all spiritual blessings, peace, pardon, reconciliation with God, grace, glory, and all good things are purchased.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Having been reconciled to God, we are now reconciled to each other—as family, as brothers and sisters, as members of the same body. All Christians are, collectively, the “bride” of Christ (Rev. 19:7; 21:2, 9; 22:17). It is important to grasp that these various biblical word-pictures—“brothers and sisters,” “one body,” “one new man,” “fellow citizens,” “household of God,” “bride,” etc., are not “just” metaphors (I suspect we should quite putting the word ‘just’ in front of the word ‘metaphor’ when trying to understand biblical language). They are describing true reality as communicated to us via revelation. We really are “brothers and sisters,” “one body,” etc.

In various classes I have taught (in Theology and Bible) I have tried to communicate—in different ways—a thoroughly biblical understanding of a basic question: “What is the gospel?” It is a good question, and may take a tad more thought than one initially realizes. If I were to ask such a question in a Sunday School class or Bible study, I might get a variety of answers: “Christ has died for us”; “Jesus is the way to heaven”; “The only way to get to the Father is through the Son”; and more. And those are all true answers. But they may not quite grapple with all that the Bible seems to mean when it speaks of the “gospel.”
Is there a way to think about the gospel in relationship to loving our neighbors? Or is the “gospel” simply a “vertical” reality while loving our neighbor is a “horizontal” issue—and never the twain shall meet? I hope to show that what God does in the gospel has direct ramifications and implications for how we love our neighbors. We get a glimpse of how the “vertical” and “horizontal” are rightly linked in texts like John 13:34–35 where Jesus gives a “new command” that Jesus’ followers are to love each other: “just as I have loved you, you are also are to love another.”
One should be careful about criticizing such answers, for at least one very good reason: the Bible itself at times seems quite happy to speak in a kind of short-hand way about the gospel. A few examples:

1 Corinthians 15:1–11: Here Paul summarizes the gospel in four key truths: (1) the death of Christ (according to the Scriptures); (2) the burial of Christ; (3) the resurrection of Christ (according to the Scriptures); and (4) the many appearances of Christ.
Acts 2:22–24: Here Peter can say that (1) God delivered Jesus up “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God,” that Peter’s listeners “crucified and killed” Jesus, and that “God raised him up.” In short, the gospel seems to be summarized in terms of the death and resurrection of Christ, which was a part of God’s plan.
Mark 1:14–15: Mark records: “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.’” Here we see an emphasis on a certain understanding of “fulfilled” time, the Kingdom of God, and the necessity of repentance and belief in the gospel.

If we go back to the Old Testament, we might consider passages from Isaiah:

Isaiah 52:1–10: Here the Lord appears to be speaking of some future situation in the life of the people of God. Although they will be taken into captivity, there is a blessed future beyond their Babylonian captivity. God will vindicate his name (v. 6): “my people shall know my name,” and “in that day they shall know that it is I who speak; here am I.” There is one coming who will bring “good news,” “good news of happiness” (v. 7). This bringer of good news “publishes salvation,” and says to Zion, “Your God reigns.” And indeed “all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” (v. 10).

What would we say if someone said to us: “How in the world might I hold 1 Corinthians 15:1–11, Acts 2:22–24, Mark 1:14–15, and Isaiah 52:1–10 together?” At first glance we might struggle a bit. And it probably shows that the question “What is the Gospel?” may take some real thought if we are to answer it correctly.
But I want to pick up on a key theme or two in this article. We see in Mark 1:14–15 that somehow wrapped up with the gospel is the theme of kingdom, and the necessity of repenting and believing. Thus, we see that in sharing the gospel there is inherent to gospel communication an explicit call to respond to the gospel: one must believe and repent.
In Isaiah 52:7, we see that the “good news” that the messenger brings includes the announcement, “Your God reigns” (and in the immediate context, this phrase is seemingly coupled in Isaiah 52:7 with the messenger publishing “salvation”). But what exactly is the “good news”? What is “gospel” about the fact that “God reigns”? Let us say that I am talking to my non-Christian friend, and I am trying to share Christ with him.
Read More
Related Posts: