In a time when division runs rampant—even in the church—and believers shred each other publicly for differing opinions, one man bravely steps out to call Christians to unity in the One who binds them all together—Jesus Christ. Author Dr. James W. Walraven dares to suggest that Christians make wiser choices, forgive one another, and mature in their faith.
Walraven, author of Will God Save Everyone, doesn’t shy away from tough topics. He suggests that though doctrines diverge, rather than separate over differences, Christians rally around the truth of the gospel—believers should treat others better than themselves. In a me-first, turbulent culture, the biblical call to love one another is almost a radical concept, but Walraven is convinced unity can be achieved.
“Spiritual maturity is critical when it comes to recognizing and resisting the many false teachings that are being promoted,” Walraven says. “As the world becomes increasingly hostile toward the Christian faith, the need for unity will be increasingly important.”
Dr. Walraven’s new book, One in Christ is written with strength through supporting Scriptures and other resources, yet with personal vulnerability, each chapter concludes with thought-provoking personal challenges designed to move believers closer to oneness in Christ.
Jesus. How do the NAR and the inclusivists/progressives view Jesus? Do they magnify and exalt Jesus, or do they diminish Him?
Both the NAR and the inclusivists diminish Jesus. With the NAR, the church largely replaces Jesus. The church brings about Jesus’s return. At His return, the church does the key actions, not Jesus. They justify their view by saying that since the church is Christ’s body, Christ is still glorified. But, instead of a capital “J” Jesus and a small “c” church, one ends up with a capital “C” Church and a small “j” jesus.
Think also of the role of signs and wonders within the NAR. If one isn’t constantly performing them, one isn’t a true Christian, one isn’t walking in the fulness of one’s “anointing.” Those who aren’t healed, those not performing miracles, are second class Christians. How exhausting it all becomes to have to live up to those expectations, of having to live in constant spiritual “highs.” No one talks about the spiritual “crashes” that follow. As we saw, leaders of the NAR spend much time recounting all the prophecies they’ve given or received, all the signs and wonders performed, all the things they’ve accomplished. Who can live up to that? Once again, it is all about them, not Jesus.
Even personally, with my legal blindness, sadly, I’ve run into trouble with some charismatics because my eyes were not healed. To them, my faith must therefore be lacking. Beyond that, any Christian who doesn’t speak in a heavenly tongue is also a second-class Christian. For a few, if one doesn’t speak in tongues, one isn’t even saved. While supposedly salvation is through faith—for some, not all—certain works end up becoming almost essential. A “gospel” that ends up being performance driven is no gospel at all (yes, as Ephesians 2:10 indicates, works do follow, a result of faith).
The inclusivist side is the direct opposite of the NAR. Works do not need to follow salvation as there is no “salvation” in the classic biblical sense. Since in essence God is in everyone and everything, all are included. What we do or have done doesn’t ultimately matter. The issue isn’t sin, but a wrong focus in terms of our identity: taking our identity from fallen Adam rather than recognizing we are already in the finished work of Christ.
Jesus’s death on the cross for our sins doesn’t much matter, His incarnation is everything. God became man, so man can become God, as Athanasius of Alexandria put it so long ago. As with the NAR, the inclusivists diminish the biblical Jesus. Is there any greater way to diminish Jesus than to deny the centrality of His death and resurrection for our salvation? No.
In essence the inclusivists turn Jesus into a liar. Consider John 10:14–17 (NAU): “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.”
We see Jesus stating that His death is the key. Indeed, Jesus even states that the Father loves him because of his willingness to die. The passage also tells us that Jesus also has the authority to take up his life again. His resurrection is just as important. As 1 Corinthians 15 states, if Christ was not raised, we are still lost, dead in our sins.
Better to stay with what Scripture states: Christ died on the cross for our sins; salvation through faith in Christ is essential, the only way to avoid eternal separation from God, that universal automatic salvation does not exist. Better to magnify Christ and what He has done than to be prideful in one’s own works. Better to stay within Scripture as opposed to following the siren songs of either the NAR or the inclusivists.
Whom do we listen to? Have we been captured by a siren’s song, whether that siren is from the NAR or the inclusivists?
A Christian is perhaps more susceptible to the NAR. It promises the ability to perform almost endless signs and wonders, coupled with total victory over their adversaries, those who hate Christ. Instead, consider the many verses in the New Testament that speak of Christians facing persecution and suffering, pressures that will increase prior to Christ’s return.
A non-Christian is perhaps more likely to be captivated by the “Christian” inclusivists/progressives. They do away with the need for salvation. One can reject all the passages of Scripture that cause discomfort and point to the reality of sin. After all, everyone is included in Christ, all are saved, regardless.
Neither side is biblical, neither side is helpful. On the one hand, with the NAR, one finds a militant warfare “gospel,” a “gospel” that often removes God’s love, presenting a “god” of militant judgment, with followers who at times seem to have more in common with the Qur’an’s teachings of warfare and subduing the infidels, than Scripture. Love, pray for, and do good to your enemies? Almost nowhere to be found. Those who referred to the NAR as a type of “Christian Taliban,” sadly, have some justification for doing so.
If, as Scripture states, the world will know we are disciples of Jesus by our love for one another—in that verse’s context believer’s love for other believers—one doesn’t find it here. Rather, as we’ve seen, every Christian must conform to all NAR tenets or risk God’s judgment, death and destruction, or being devoured. The NAR has all too many marks of a classic cult group. Their apostles have total authority, and one must align one’s life with them on all levels. “Align” is a much more neutral sounding term than the classic understanding of “submit” within a cult-group context.
The progressive/inclusivist side does the exact opposite from the NAR side. Here one finds a “god” of love, a love based on human terms, not a biblical love that is also holy. Due to that overarching love, all will be saved. Accountability? Having to face eternal judgment because of one’s own sin? Nowhere to be found. Everyone is included, some just haven’t realized it yet. As just mentioned, God’s holiness is absent. Christ needing to die on the cross for our sins? Not really.
As we will see in the next post, both sides diminish Jesus.
Do we follow the Bible, or are we drawn to other extra-biblical books? We often want to fill in the gaps where Scripture is silent, or to have access to “secret knowledge” others don’t possess. Thus, non-canonical writings have a seductive appeal. Numerous supposed “biblical” books have been heartily endorsed, books that supposedly reveal the “real truth” that Scripture deliberately hides or denies.
We’ve been looking at the way the NAR and the progressives/inclusivists twist or ignore Scripture, but that is far from the only danger. Consider the endorsement of the Apocrypha by Roman Catholicism and some Anglicans. Others favor “The Gospel of Thomas,” along with other Gnostic gospels that purport to give special knowledge, viewing them as more authentic than anything recorded in the New Testament Gospels.
We also have the increasing curiosity and fascination with first, second, and third Enoch, particularly first Enoch. What are we to make of these supposed “biblical” books? After all, 1 Enoch is included in the Ethiopian Bible. Among other things it purports to give the true origin of sin and the details about how those shadowy creatures, the Nephilim, came to be. Weren’t all the other churches wrong to exclude it? It is sometimes inferred that there are all sorts of things that the Church doesn’t want us to know.
Do any of these books provide us with extra-biblical, but more authentic authoritative “truth”? We will start by looking at the Apocrypha, then “The Gospel of Thomas” along with other Gnostic writings, and close with an examination of the various books of Enoch.