The Thinklings

"And do you now begin to see why Christianity has always said that the devil is a fallen angel? That is not a mere story for the children. It is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. The powers which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by goodness."

- C.S. Lewis

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

The Heresy Of Gulley And Mulholland

Posted by Bird @ 7:30 pm CDT
Filed under: General, Theology

The peculiar thing about If Grace is True: Why God Will Save Every Person is that the authors -- Philip Gulley and James Mulholland -- quote the Bible generously in order to buttress their Universalist ideas, but flatly deny so much scripture and orthodox Christian doctrine that they shouldn't even be considered to be on the fringe of Christianity. Quite simply, they're heretics.

heresy

I don't know if I've ever read a "Christian" book and then, when finished, labeled the author a heretic, but with these guys it's a no-brainer.

Gulley and Mulholland make a few theological blunders (to put it mildly) and those errors turn out to be a poor foundation on which to build their view of God. For example, Gulley and Mulholland deny the authority of the entirety of Scripture:

If you are unwilling to question the Bible, neither my experiences nor my arguments will carry much weight. (Pg. 49)

Weighing Scripture allows for the possibility that some descriptions of God and his behavior are inaccurate. (Pg. 52)

With regard to biblical authority, Gulley and Mulholland make use of a popular St. Augustine quotation: "There are very many who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments." While using that quotation to bolster their position, they flatly deny entire portions of the Bible that do not coincide with their Universalist ideas. The end result is a couple of writers who do in fact deny Holy Scriptures, while not believing in endless torments.

The authors also argue for a theology based on feelings and experiences, with God "whispering in my ear." (By the way, apparently to avoid confusion, the authors write the book in one voice.)

If all of that isn't enough, Gulley and Mulholland sidestep the necessity of the deity of Christ, and His sole efficacy in salvation:

I believe Jesus had a special relationship with God and an important role in human history, though I'm no longer persuaded this required his divinity. I'm committed to living the way of Jesus, though I no longer insist "there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Pg. 125)

Finally, the authors deny a host of other Christian dogmas:

When I became convinced that God would save every person, I tried to hold on to traditional Christian formulas -- the trinity, the incarnation, and atonement theology. I wanted to pour this new wine into old wineskins. I quickly realised why Jesus recommended against this: the old wineskins always burst. . . . My mind enlarged, I had to abandon the formulas I'd been taught, had preached, and had defended. (Pg. 126)

I don't think reading the book was a complete waste of my time. Gulley and Mulholland have something to say about paradoxes within Scripture, the love of God, the mercy of God, and the teachings of JESUS. Their conclusions, though, are erroneous and dangerous -- they undermine the faith.

no trackbacks 14 comments

Trackbacks:

Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/4798.

Comments on "The Heresy Of Gulley And Mulholland":

1. Inklingstar - 08/26/2008 8:34 pm CDT

It's pretty ridiculous on its face - the authors came to a conclusion using their mind and their feelings and then discarded the Scripture that contradicted their conclusion.

Who needs the Bible anyway?

2. Bill - 08/26/2008 8:58 pm CDT

Not only that, based on the quotes Bird left (I haven't read the book) it sounds like they are discarding the deity of Christ and the path to God that only lies in Him.

3. Anne - 08/26/2008 9:12 pm CDT

Some of those most deliberately undermining "the faith once given" are very polite, sincere folks who still use the banner "Christian" to teach something of their own creation rather than "the faith once given". I'm not denying that thoughts grow and develop; I'm denying that there's some other Jesus than the one his family and the apostles knew.

Take care & God bless
WF

4. Inklingstar - 08/26/2008 9:14 pm CDT

Universalism is an attractive philosophy because you don't have to deal with all that icky damnation stuff. You don't have to worry about the problem of sin, because if we're all saved anyway then who is to tell another person what is right and what is wrong?

At what point though is someone no longer a Christian? One may claim to follow Christ, but if you ignore His deity then you are not following the Christ of the Bible, but a christ of your own imagination.

5. Bird - 08/26/2008 9:23 pm CDT

At what point though is someone no longer a Christian?

I don't consider the authors to be Christians, even though they think they are.

6. Jane - 08/27/2008 8:42 am CDT

Jim Mulholland and I are both actively involved in community service in the inner city. I am in a position to see his walk. Labeling him a heretic is way off base.

7. blest - 08/27/2008 9:00 am CDT

Lots of people who do not even claim to follow Christ are actively involved in community service and are very nice, kind people.

Heresy is teaching a gospel other than the one proclaimed in Scripture.

8. Bird - 08/27/2008 9:31 am CDT

Jane,

Blest sums up my response. My labeling him a heretic is not meant to be mean or divisive. He simply is not within the bounds of the orthodox faith. I'm sure his intentions are well, and I'm sure he's a great person. In other words, I don't doubt his orthopraxy.

Thanks for your comment.

9. Evan - 08/27/2008 9:43 am CDT

Exactly blest.

More and more I appreciate what CS Lewis called the 'death of words'. Everywhere I look these days, people seem to want take precise or technical terms, and make them into very general statements of opinion or feeling.

To paraphrase Lewis, we already have perfectly good words for 'kindness', 'charity', etc. We don't need to muddle the definition of other words to mean them. Therefore, it is entirely possible to be a kind or charitable heretic.

10. GinH - 08/27/2008 12:32 pm CDT

Did you find that book in a Christian bookstore and was it a Christian publisher?????

11. Bird - 08/27/2008 12:51 pm CDT

GinH,

I borrowed it from the library. It's a HarperCollins book.

12. Diane - 08/27/2008 1:23 pm CDT

This book was published in 2004, and you can't even get it new from Amazon. They followed it up with "If God is Love", but it's only available from "amazon sellers" as well. I guess that's a good thing...

13. Karl - 08/27/2008 2:55 pm CDT

It's like someone saying

"I don't believe there is no God but Allah, nor do I believe Mohammed was Allah's prophet. But I am still a Muslim because I like most of the teachings of Mohammed and want to follow those that I like."

See how far that gets you. Sorry, if that's what you believe, you aren't a Muslim. Simply by definition. No matter how much you'd like to call yourself one.

Same to these guys. If that's what they believe they aren't "Christians" simply by definition. They don't believe the core beliefs of Christianity - the divinity of Jesus being primary. Don't try to redefine "Christian" to fit the religion that you've come up with - just be honest. Otherwise, by definition, you are a heretic. I ran into this all the time during our foray into the Episcopal church. Makes me want to bang my head against the wall.

14. Adam G. - 08/30/2008 6:44 pm CDT

"The Inescapable Love of God" is a far better defense and explanation of Christian universalism. I still don't agree entirely with the perspective of CU, but the writers you reviewed here are most certainly deniers of larges swathes of Scripture. I hold nothing against them and appreciated the book they wrote that I read, but never refer back to it.

Name:
URL:	(optional)
Email:	(optional - will not be published)