Scott Ellard Replies

By Scott Ellard

[This is a response that was made to my comments that had been published here. I include this alternate point of view for your review --Merle]

Hello Merle,

Thank you for another opportunity to continue our discussion.

Your initial comments were regarding experience. I completely agree that experience does not prove anything. Each of us as individuals must decide how much or how little or if any weight should be given to any experience, our own or others.

You then also go on to state that I admit that it is possible that I was deceived by own experiences. Again, I will restate for the record that it is *possible" that I am self-deceived. On the other hand, it is also possible that I am not. At the end of the day, we all still make choices and live based on what we believe is true, doing the best we can with what we think we know.

You then introduce my frequent use of the term "model". I apologize that I didn't explain this very well. In my professional capacity as CTO of a software company, we frequently use "models" to discuss concepts at a logical or abstract level. I do this so that we can put ourselves in the context of the framework simply
for discussion, but not in any sense saying it is truth. (But remember, my original correspondence with you specifically stated my goal wasn't "to argue the truth of the Christian world view, but rather is it coherent and predictive *with respect to you experiences*".)

For the sake of this discussion, I assumed we were only dealing with the basics. (The Bible, a triune God, Jesus, sin, salvation etc.) Pretty much those things at a macro level that most tend to think of when they discuss Christianity. Perhaps I should have defined it in more detail as once you step further down into the concepts, what constitutes the Bible, and the trinity, and Jesus etc become more important. But I thought we could keep the discussion at a high enough level of abstraction that we could still just talk.

You then write:

You tell us "the model" is a particular view of Christian teaching--which you claim is the only correct Christian view--and you tell us that all "Christian" teachings that disagree with "the model" are false doctrines taught by false teachers.

More fully, I am saying that if we *assume* for the moment the Christian world-view exists then by definition there must be a model that describes that world view. (I am not saying that mine is *the* correct model, perhaps my model (and I suspect it is) is only partially in agreement with the correct model.) But not withstanding that, can we agree that one possible model states that there will be false doctrines and false apostles etc?

And *if* we can agree to that, then we should not be surprised if we find that there are lots of variations in what is considered true Christianity.

You then write:

Supposedly "the model"--not to be confused with "the matrix"--makes claims regarding salvation. What are those salvation claims of "the model"?.

(As an aside, I particularly liked "The Matrix". I found it to be a very compellinganalogy to the Christian world view in the sense that the majority are being deceived but if they are willing to be exposed to the truth, then the truth will make them free.)

My view of salvation is that it is a gift from God than can be accepted or rejected. This is where I disagree with our Calvinist friends. Calvinists rob God of his sovereignty by declaring that God in his sovereignty could not create a creature and give him a choice. (The nature and timing of that choice could be further defined, but there is still a choice by the creature involved.)

I believe that Adam was created in the image of God, but not in his likeness at the moment of creation -- I believe the likeness part comes later through Jesus. (In computing terms we speak of structure vs. content. We had the structure of God but not the content of God.) Note even in Genesis we see the trinity in two ways, plural subjects with singular verbs, and God the Father saying let there be light, God the Son creating the light, and God the Holy Spirit declaring it good.

Once Adam sinned all of his descendants were born in Adam's image not God's image. For a very interesting discussion of one of the possible reasons Eve was created from Adam before the fall, you might want to review "The Seed of the Woman" by anthropologist Arthur C. Custance. Another of his books worth looking at is "Without Form and Void" which is a discussion of Genesis 1.

Many folks will argue that it is unfair that we are unjustly penalized for what Adam did. Perhaps, but I find the principle to be in our favor when we consider that just as Adam as the federal head of the human race can do something that effects us all, so too can Jesus as the federal head do something that effects us all. This is why a lot of verses about being in Adam vs. in Christ are quite profound to me.

Adam was basically told not to do one thing in order to maintain his fellowship with his Creator -- obedience. We however only have to do one thing in order to gain fellowship with our Creator -- again obedience. None of us are condemned to eternal separation from God for our sins, they have all been dealt with by the cross -- that's the good news. Jesus' physical death was not the most important aspect of the cross, but rather his separation from God the Father. Somehow in God's own economy the separation of God from God satisfies his sense of holiness and justice. Jesus gives the definition of life in John as knowing God. Is it too big a stretch then to understand that death is not knowing (in the present tense) God -- and that we get the choose whether we want to know God and that God has satisfied Himself on his own terms to give us that choice. (And for those never given the opportunity to choose here on Earth, it may very well be that they get a choice later. Not something I can prove at this moment in the model, but I trust God with this issue based on his character.)

So salvation (and thus life) is accepting a relationship with one's Creator, but accepting it on His terms and not ours. As I related to you previously, I at one time thought that by simple intellectual agreement with many Biblical truths, that I could claim to be born again. However, I learned there was more to it than that. I had to be *willing* to surrender to all of his claims on my life. He reserves that right as God and since I am dependent on him for the air I breathe, the water I drink, not having to remind my heart to beat, etc, that this isn't such a burdensome request. I was born again when I "unconditionally surrendered" to Him. (Again an experience, and as I have already agreed, it could be an experience of self-deception or not.)

You write:

But if "the model" is based on the Bible, than it seems to me that "the model" is based on a contradictory book.

I understand that you believe that the Bible is a contradictory book. I do not but we would have to spend a lot of time defining terms to have a meaningful discussion on that topic. Can we save that for another day and for the purposes of this discussion just deal with the example you give below?

You write:

Take, for instance, "The just shall live by faith" (Romans 1:17). This is a quote of Habakkuk 2:4. Paul uses that verse in reference to the gospel of Christ and salvation, but Habakkuk's book has nothing to do with eternal salvation or the story of Jesus. Rather, Habakkuk deals with faithfulness in living for God in spite of the Babylonian captivity. (The word translated "faith" is commonly translated "faithfulness", and this appears to be the meaning even in Habakkuk.) Habakkuk doesn't ever hint that he is speaking of saving faith in a dying Son of God for eternal life. He is speaking of the just remaining faithful in spite of adversity. Paul quotes Habakkuk, but Habakkuk does not mean what Paul uses the phrase to mean. This is just one example of Paul's perversion of the Old Testament.

I agree with your description that Habbakkuk's use of "faith" has nothing to do with the gospel of Christ explicitly. However, in a sense it does deal with salvation. For the word "faith" is not reserved for just those doctrines alone. Faith among other things is believing God. So to say the just shall live by faith is nothing more or less than saying that those justified (or righteous) before God are in that state by believing God, whether that is the gospel of Christ or the principles of sacrifice as given to Israel. My working definition of faith is knowledge of reality perceived independent of the senses. And that if God did not take it upon himself to reveal that knowledge we would have no way of knowing his reality. (Again not trying to prove anything here -- just giving a conceptual framework for my beliefs.)

You write:

How can the Bible be giving clear guidance, when some verses say one must keep the commandments to go to heaven, and other verses say there is no need to keep the commandments for salvation? Those verses contradict, don't they? So how can I trust this book for clear guidance?

I need specific references to comment precisely, however in general most of these kinds of issues have to do with not rightly dividing. I am something of a dispensationalist which understands that the "command" for being in a right relationship with God is dependent upon what constitutes obedience for any given person. For example, in Jesus' time, a Jew while not being sinless could be justified by obeying the commands for making the appropriate sacrifices. Ultimately all justification or righteousness is dependent upon willing obedience in a particular context.

You write:

The Bible contradicts, and it is not clear about what is needed for salvation. I don't know how you--or "The model"--would answer. You asked the question. So why not tell us? What, in your opinion, is true saving faith?

True saving faith is nothing more or less than unconditional surrender to God on his terms. As I have stated before, only the Holy Spirit can prove those terms to you. I believe the Holy Spirit is trying to do just that, but you get to choose whether you want to believe Him or not.

Or there may be no Holy Spirit at all and everything I believe can be explained away solely on the basis of naturalist principles. :)

Finally and respectfully, I have no reason to doubt any of the things you have written about your own experiences. However, since self-deception is possible, is it possible that while you may have at one time intellectually agreed to many of the Biblical concepts and thus considered yourself born-again, that in reality you never unconditionally surrendered to God in such a way that he imparted spiritual life?

My very best regards,

Scott